Case C-502/04: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of  16 February 2006  (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht — Ergün Torun v Stadt Augsburg) (EEC-Turkey Association — Freedom of movement for workers — Article 7, second paragraph, of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council — Child of a Turkish worker who has reached the age of majority and completed a course of vocational training in the host Member State — Criminal conviction — Effect on right of residence)
Date: 2006-06-17
Institutions: Court of Justice
Subjects: Germany, Türkiye, carrying out of sentence, foreign national, imprisonment, interpretation of the law, job access, job application, residence permit

C 143/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

17.6.2006

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Gerechtshof te 's-Herto-
genbosch — Interpretation of Article 14c(b) of Council Regu-
lation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application
of social security schemes to employed persons,
to self-
employed persons and to members of their families moving
within the Community, as amended and updated by Council
Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996 (OJ 1997
L 28, p. 1), and of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21
March 1972 fixing the procedure for implementing Regulation
No 1408/71, as amended and updated by Regulation No
118/97 — Application of Article 14c(b) in conjunction with
Annex VII, point 1 — Social security — Person simultaneously
subject to the legislation of two Member States

Operative part of the judgment

Articles 48 and 52 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Articles
39 and 43 EC) concerning, respectively, freedom of movement for
workers and freedom of establishment, and Article 14c(b) of Council
Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application
of social security schemes to employed persons,
to self-employed
persons and to members of their families moving within the Com-
munity, as amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC)
No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Council Regulation
(EC) No 1606/98 of 29 June 1998, must be interpreted as not
precluding Netherlands legislation which includes,
in the basis for
calculating social security contributions, interest such as that paid, in
the case in the main proceedings, by a company established in the
Netherlands to a Netherlands national resident in Belgium who is
subject, under that regulation and taking into account the nature of
his occupational activities, to the social security legislation of both
those Member States.

(1) OJ C 31, 05.02.2005.

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 30 March
2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge
Raad der Nederlanden) — A.C. Smits-Koolhoven v Staats-
secretaris van Financiën

(Case C-495/04) (1)

(Directive 95/59 — Tax on the consumption of manufactured
tobacco — Herbal cigarettes — Used exclusively for medical
purposes)

(2006/C 143/28)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: A.C. Smits-Koolhoven

Defendant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Hoge Raad der Neder-
landen — Interpretation of Art. 7(2) of Council Directive
95/59/EC of 27 November 1995 on taxes other than turnover
taxes which affect the consumption of manufactured tobacco
(OJ 1995 L 291, p. 40 — Medicinal cigarettes — Exclusively
medical purpose — Therapeutic or prophylactic purposes

Operative part of the judgment

Article 7(2) of Council Directive 95/59/EC of 27 November 1995
on taxes other than turnover taxes which affect the consumption of
manufactured tobacco must be interpreted as meaning that cigarettes
without tobacco which do not contain substances having a medical
effect but which are presented and marketed as an aid to giving up
smoking are not ‘used exclusively for medical purposes’ within the
meaning of the second subparagraph of that provision.

(1) OJ C 31, 5.2.2005.

Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 16 February
2006 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundes-
verwaltungsgericht — Ergün Torun v Stadt Augsburg)

(Case C-502/04) (1)

(EEC-Turkey Association — Freedom of movement
for
workers — Article 7, second paragraph, of Decision No 1/80
of the Association Council — Child of a Turkish worker who
has reached the age of majority and completed a course of
vocational training in the host Member State — Criminal
conviction — Effect on right of residence)

(2006/C 143/29)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Germany)

17.6.2006

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 143/17

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ergün Torun

Defendant: Stadt Augsburg

Applicants: Cynthia Mattern, Hajrudin Cikotic

Defendant: Ministre du Travail et de l'Emploi

Re:

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Bundesverwaltungsgericht
— Interpretation of Articles 6, 7 and 14 of Decision 1/80 of
the EEC/Turkey Association Council — Turkish national who is
a member of the family of a Turkish worker, who is duly regis-
tered as belonging to the labour force in a Member State, and
who has been given a three year prison sentence, not
suspended — Loss of right of residence

Operative part of the judgment

The child, who has reached the age of majority, of a Turkish migrant
worker who has been legally employed in a Member State for more
than three years, and who has successfully finished a vocational
training course in that State and satisfies the conditions set out in the
second paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September
1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Associa-
tion Council established by the Association Agreement between the
European Economic Community and Turkey, does not lose the right
of residence that is the corollary of the right to respond to any offer of
employment conferred by that provision except in the circumstances
laid down in Article 14(1) of that provision or when he leaves the
territory of the host Member State for a significant length of time
without legitimate reason.

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Cour administrative —
Interpretation of Article 39 of the EC Treaty and of Regulation
(EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on
freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ,
English Special Edition, 1968 (II), p. 475) — National of a third
country, married to a national of a Member State, seeking
exemption from the requirement to obtain a work permit in
that Member State — Community national spouse who has
attended a vocational training course and professional training
in another Member State

Operative part of the judgment

In circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, Article 11 of
Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968
on freedom of movement
for workers within the Community, as
amended by Council Regulation (EEC) No 2434/92 of 27 July
1992, does not confer on a national of a third country the right to
take up an activity as an employed person in a Member State other
than the one in which his spouse, a Community national, pursues or
has pursued an activity as an employed person in exercise of her right
to free movement.

(1) OJ C 31, 05.02.2005.

(1) OJ C 69, 19.03.2005.

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 30 March 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Cour adminis-
trative) — Cynthia Mattern, Hajrudin Cikotic v Ministre
du Travail et de l'Emploi

Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber) of 27 April 2006
(reference for a preliminary ruling from the Gerechtshof
te Amsterdam ) — Kawasaki Motors Europe NV v Inspec-
teur van de Belastingdienst/Douane district Rotterdam

(Case C-10/05) (1)

(Case C-15/05) (1)

(Freedom of movement for persons — Workers — Family
members — Right of a national of a third country married to
a Community national to take up an activity as an employed
person — Conditions)

(Common Customs Tariff — Tariff headings — Classifica-
tion of vehicles — Tractors — Cars and vehicles principally
designed for the transport of persons — Regulation (EC) No
2518/98 — Point 5 of the annexed table — Invalidity)

(2006/C 143/30)

Language of the case: French

(2006/C 143/31)

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Cour administrative

Referring court

Gerechtshof te Amsterdam