CELEX: C2005/031/28
Language: en
Date: 2005-02-05 00:00:00
Title: Case C-502/04: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of that court of 3 August 2004 in the case of Ergün Torun against Stadt Augsburg, interested parties: 1. the representative of the national interest before the Bundesverwaltungsgericht 2. Landesanwaltschaft Bayern

5.2.2005   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 31/14
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of that court of 3 August 2004 in the case of Ergün Torun against Stadt Augsburg, interested parties: 1. the representative of the national interest before the Bundesverwaltungsgericht 2. Landesanwaltschaft Bayern
   (Case C-502/04)
   (2005/C 31/28)
   Language of the case: German
   Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the European Communities by order of the Bundesverwaltungsgericht of 3 August 2004, received at the Court Registry on 7 December 2004, for a preliminary ruling in the case of Ergün Torun against Stadt Augsburg, interested parties: 1. the representative of the national interest before the Bundesverwaltungsgericht 2. Landesanwaltschaft Bayern received at the Court Registry on 7 December 2004 for a preliminary ruling on the following questions:
   
               1.
            
            
               Where a Turkish worker has been legally employed in the Federal Republic of Germany for more than three years, does his child who has reached the age of majority and has completed a course of vocational training as an industrial mechanic by passing the final apprenticeship examination also forfeit his right of residence that is the corollary of the right under the second sentence of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC/Turkey Association Council ('Decision No 1/80') to respond to any offer of employment – apart from cases under Article 14 of Decision No 1/80 or where the host Member State is left without legitimate reason for a significant period of time – where
               
                           (a)
                        
                        
                           the child has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment totalling three years for aggravated robbery and drug offences, the sentence has not been suspended (even at a later date) and the whole of the sentence has been served by offsetting the period spent on remand pending trial?
                        
                     
                           (b)
                        
                        
                           the child has himself pursued employment as a worker within the legitimate labour force of the Federal Republic of Germany and has thereby acquired in his own right a right of residence that is the corollary of the right of free access to employment under the second or third indents of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80, and has subsequently forfeited that right?
                           Is such forfeiture caused by
                           
                                       (aa)
                                    
                                    
                                       the fact that he left his last place of employment as a result of drug addiction-induced summary termination of his employment by his employer?
                                    
                                 
                                       (bb)
                                    
                                    
                                       the fact that, following a period of ill health of more than three months, he did not register with the competent authority as unemployed for a period of one month between the end of his incapacity for work and his arrest for the commission of a criminal offence?
                                    
                                 
                                       (cc)
                                    
                                    
                                       the fact that he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment totalling three years for aggravated robbery and drug offences, that the sentence was not suspended (even at a later date), that the whole of the sentence was served by offsetting the period spent on remand pending trial and that during that time he was not available to the legitimate labour force but, approximately three months after his release, did find employment again with a firm on a temporary basis, without then having any national right of residence?
                                    
                                 
                     
         
               2.
            
            
               If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative: Does a Turkish national forfeit his right of residence that is the corollary of the right of free access to employment under the second or third indents of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 in the circumstances described above in Question 1b)?