CELEX: C2006/281/32
Language: en
Date: 2006-11-18 00:00:00
Title: Case C-349/06: Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt (Germany) lodged on 21 August 2006 — Murat Polat v Stadt Rüsselsheim

18.11.2006   
            
            
               EN
            
            
               Official Journal of the European Union
            
            
               C 281/20
            
         Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt (Germany) lodged on 21 August 2006 — Murat Polat v Stadt Rüsselsheim
   (Case C-349/06)
   (2006/C 281/32)
   Language of the case: German
   Referring court
   Verwaltungsgericht Darmstadt
   Parties to the main proceedings
   
      Applicant: Murat Polat
   
      Defendant: Stadt Rüsselsheim
   Questions referred
   
               1.
            
            
               Is it compatible with Article 59 of the Additional Protocol to the Agreement of 12 September 1963 establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey (1) for the transitional phase if a Turkish national who, as a child, joined his parents who were employed as workers in the Federal Republic of Germany, does not lose his right of residence derived from the right under the second [indent] of the first sentence of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the EEC/Turkey Association Council (Decision No 1/80) to free access to any paid employment — except in cases under Article 14 of Decision No 1/80 or where he leaves the host Member State for a significant period of time without legitimate reason — even in the case where he has attained the age of 21 and no longer lives with his parents or is maintained by them?
            
         In the event that the answer to Question 1 is negative:
   
               2.
            
            
               Does a Turkish national, whose legal status under the second indent of the first sentence of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 has been terminated on the basis of the conditions set out in Question 1, reacquire that legal status if, after reaching the age of 21, he returns to live in his parents' household for a period of more than three years, is permitted to live there free of charge and is given lodging, and the mother has minimal employment (as a cleaning lady generally for 30 to 70 hours per month and at times 20 hours per month) during that period?
            
         In the event that the answer to Question 2 is affirmative:
   
               3.
            
            
               Does the position in law change if the family member has a number of courses of residential treatments (30.8.2001 to 20.6.2002, 2.10.2003 to 8.1.2004) during the period of residence with the worker?
            
         
               4.
            
            
               Does the position in law change if the Turkish national has regular personal income of at least EUR 400 to EUR 1 400 per month during the period of residence with the worker?
            
         In the event that the continuance of a legal status under the second indent of the first sentence of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 is to be assumed (if the answer to Question 1 is affirmative or the answer to Question 2 is affirmative and the answers to Questions 3 and 4 are negative):
   
               5.
            
            
               May a Turkish national, whose legal status derives from the second indent of the first sentence of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 and who has lived in the federal territory since 1972, rely on the special protection against expulsion under Article 28(3)(a) of Directive 2004/38/EC of 29 April 2004 (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77; corrigendum at OJ 2004 L 229, p. 35)?
            
         
               6.
            
            
               Does the position in law change if the Turkish national, within the ten years prior to the issue of the expulsion order, resided in Turkey from 1 February 1996 to 28 November 1997 for the purpose of performing his military service?
            
         In the event that the answer to Question 5 is negative or the answer to Question 6 is affirmative:
   
               7.
            
            
               May a Turkish national, whose legal status derives from the second indent of the first sentence of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 and who has lived in the federal territory since 1972, rely on the special protection against expulsion under Article 28(2) of Directive 2004/38?
            
         In the event that the answer to Question 7 is negative:
   
               8.
            
            
               May a Turkish national, whose legal status derives from the second indent of the first sentence of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80, rely on the special protection against expulsion under Article 28(1) of Directive 2004/38?
            
         In the event that the continuance of a legal status under the second indent of the first sentence of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 is to be assumed (if the answer to Question 1 is affirmative or the answer to Question 2 is affirmative and the answers to Questions 3 and 4 are negative), a further question requires an answer:
   
               9.
            
            
               Can a number of minor offences (essentially offences against property), which, taken individually, are not sufficient to form the basis of an actual and sufficiently serious danger to a fundamental interest of society, justify expulsion because of their great number, if further offences are likely and no measures are taken against German nationals in the same circumstances?
            
         
      (1)  OJ 1977 L 361, p. 60.