CELEX: C2003/200/16
Language: en
Date: 2003-08-23 00:00:00
Title: Case C-230/03: Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwaltungsgericht by order of that Court of 18 March 2003 in the case of Mehmet Sedef against Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg; Party to proceedings: The representative of the national interest in the Bundesverwaltungsgericht

23.8.2003             EN                         Official Journal of the European Union                                          C 200/11
Reference for a preliminary ruling by the Bundesverwal-                        the occupation concerned (in this case, typical of mari-
tungsgericht by order of that Court of 18 March 2003 in                        time shipping)?
the case of Mehmet Sedef against Freie und Hansestadt
Hamburg; Party to proceedings: The representative of the
      national interest in the Bundesverwaltungsgericht
                         (Case C-230/03)
                                                                         Appeal brought on 27 May 2003 by Communità Montana
                                                                         della Valnerina against the judgment of the Third Chamber
                                                                         of the Court of First Instance of 13 March 2003 in Case
                                                                         T-340/00 Communità Montana della Valnerina v Commis-
                                                                                                         sion
                         (2003/C 200/16)
                                                                                                 (Case C-240/03 P)
                                                                                                  (2003/C 200/17)
Reference has been made to the Court of Justice of the
European Communities by order of the Bundesverwaltungsge-
richt (Federal Administrative Court) of 18 March 2003,                   An appeal against the judgment of the Third Chamber of the
received at the Court Registry on 26 May 2003, for a                     Court of First Instance of 13 March 2003 in Case T-340/00
preliminary ruling in the case of Mehmet Sedef against Freie             Communità Montana della Valnerina (supported by Italian
und Hansestadt Hamburg; Party to proceedings: The represen-              Republic) against Commission of the European Communities
tative of the national interest in the Bundesverwaltungsgericht          was brought before the Court of Justice of the European
on the following questions:                                              Communities on 27 May 2003 by Communità Montana della
                                                                         Valnerina, represented by Paolo De Caterini, Emilio Cappelli
                                                                         and Andrea Bandini, lawyers.
                                                                         The applicant claims that the Court should:
1.    Are the third indent of Article 6(1) and Article 6(2) of
      Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 of the Associa-              —     confirm, in any event, the ‘deletion’ of the position of the
      tion Council set up by the Agreement establishing an                     ‘Route des Sentiers’, as held by the Court of First Instance
      Association between the European Economic Community                      in the contested judgment;
      and Turkey (‘Decision No 1/80’) to be interpreted as
      meaning that a Turkish worker who has been legally
                                                                         —     set aside the remainder of the judgment at first instance
      employed by various employers in maritime shipping
                                                                               and give final judgment on the dispute, annulling the
      forming part of the legitimate labour force of a Member
                                                                               whole of Commission decision No 2388 of 18 August
      State for more than 15 years since 1977 without a work
                                                                               2000;
      permit being required and who has satisfied the require-
      ments of the first indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/
      80 during that time is entitled to a residence permit              —     make an appropriate order as to costs.
      where — in addition to various breaks for reasons of
      illness and involuntary unemployment duly certified by
      the relevant authority — his employment in maritime
      shipping has undergone interruptions of between one
      and seventy days between individual employment relation-           Pleas in law and main arguments
      ships on 17 occasions (totalling approximately 13 months)
      and, by his own admission, the Turkish worker has spent
      the longer breaks with his family in Turkey without any            The appellant claims that the judgment of the Court of First
      involuntary unemployment then being certified? Does the            Instance is vitiated as follows:
      answer depend on whether such breaks are typical of the
      occupation concerned (in this case, typical of maritime            —     failure to make a finding in respect of one of the pleas in
      shipping)?                                                               law;
                                                                         —     breach of the principle of proportionality;
2.    Is entitlement to a residence permit under the third               —     infringement of Article 24 of Regulation (EEC) No 4253/
      indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 conditional                   88 and of Commission Decision No 3182/93;
      on the Turkish worker already satisfying the requirements
      of the second indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80?          —     breach of the rights of the defence.
      Does the answer depend on whether a change of
      employer before the expiry of three years is typical of