CELEX: C2005/296/21
Language: en
Date: 2005-11-26 00:00:00
Title: Case C-296/05: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Council of State) by order of that court of  19 July 2005  in Minister for immigration and integration v Mr I. Günes

26.11.2005   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 296/11
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Raad van State (Council of State) by order of that court of 19 July 2005 in Minister for immigration and integration v Mr I. Günes
   (Case C-296/05)
   (2005/C 296/21)
   Language of the case: Dutch
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Raad van State (Council of State) of 19 July 2005, received at the Court Registry on 22 July 2005, for a preliminary ruling in the proceedings between the Minister for immigration and integration and Mr I. Günes on the following questions:
   
               1.
            
            
               Must the concept of restriction in Article 41(1) of the additional protocol be interpreted as subsuming within it the requirement of a temporary residence authorisation to be applied for, under Article 3.71, first paragraph, of the Vb 2000, by a foreigner who is a Turkish national in that country or the country of permanent residence and in regard to which he must await a decision prior to coming to the Netherlands in the absence of which his application for leave to remain must be rejected?
            
         
               2a.
            
            
               If the reply to Question 1 is affirmative, must Article 41(1) of the additional protocol then be construed as meaning that a new restriction within the meaning of that provision is also constituted by a tightening of the national rules in regard to the requirement to be in possession of a temporary residence authorisation following a post-January 1973 relaxation of that requirement?
            
         
               2b.
            
            
               Is the reply to Question 2a different if the relaxation concerning the requirement of possession of a temporary residence authorisation was effected not in regard to the regulatory provision itself but in regard to policy and implementing practice?