Ümit Bekleyen v Land Berlin.
Date: 2010-01-21
16. According to settled case-law, the second paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 has direct effect in the Member States, with the result that Turkish nationals fulfilling the conditions which it lays down may directly rely on the rights which it confers on them (Case C‑355/93 Eroglu  [1994] ECR I‑5113, paragraph 17, and Case C‑502/04 Torun  [2006] ECR I‑1563, paragraph 19).
17. The rights granted by the second paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 to the child of a Turkish worker with regard to employment in the host Member State necessarily imply the existence of a concomitant right of residence for that child, without which the right to have access to the employment market and actually to take up paid employment would be rendered totally ineffective ( Eroglu , paragraphs 20 and 23, and Torun , paragraph 20).
18. The Court has also held that the wording of the second paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 makes it clear that the right conferred on the child of a Turkish worker to respond to any offer of employment in the host Member State is dependent on two conditions: the child in question must have completed a course of vocational training in the Member State concerned and one of his or her parents must have been legally employed there for at least three years (Case C‑210/97 Akman  [1998] ECR I‑7519, paragraph 25).
19. Furthermore, according to the Court’s case-law, once a child has completed his education and acquired the right of access to the employment market of the host Member State and, as a result, the right to obtain a residence permit there for that purpose, it is not necessary for the parent of that child still to have the status of worker, or to continue to reside in that State, provided that, in the past, that parent was legally employed there for at least three years (see, to that effect, Akman , paragraph 51, and Case C‑329/97 Ergat  [2000] ECR I‑1487, paragraph 44).
23. It must be noted at the outset that no such condition is referred to expressly in the second paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 and that, as the Court has already held, that provision must not be interpreted strictly ( Akman , paragraph 39).
24. Decision No 1/80 is designed to promote the gradual integration in the host Member State of Turkish nationals who satisfy the conditions laid down in one of the provisions of that decision and enjoy the rights conferred on them by the decision (Case C‑337/07 Altun  [2008] ECR I-0000, paragraph 29).
25. According to well-established case-law, the second paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 is a more favourable provision than the first and is intended to provide specific treatment for children, as opposed to other members of the family of a Turkish worker, with a view to facilitating their entry into the employment market following completion of a course of vocational training, the objective being the achievement by progressive stages of freedom of movement for workers, in accordance with the aims of that decision ( Akman , paragraph 38, and Torun , paragraph 23).
26. In contrast to the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80, which imposes on the members of the family of a Turkish worker the obligation to reside with the latter for a specific continuous period ( Altun , paragraph 30), the second paragraph of that article does not lay down any condition relating to actual cohabitation in a household with the worker.
27. This is so because the second paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 is not designed to create conditions conducive to family unity in the host Member State ( Akman , paragraph 43), but to promote access of children of Turkish workers to the employment market.
35. In this respect, it should be recalled that Decision No 1/80 does not encroach upon the competence retained by the Member States to regulate both the entry into their territory of Turkish nationals and the conditions under which they may take up their first employment (Case C‑237/91 Kus  [1992] ECR I‑6781, paragraph 25, and Altun , paragraph 48).
36. The Member States have also retained the power to regulate the entry into their territory of a member of the family of a Turkish worker and the conditions of that member’s residence during the initial three-year period before he has the right to respond to any offer of employment ( Ergat , paragraph 42).
37. Furthermore, unlike workers from the Member States, Turkish nationals are not entitled to freedom of movement within the European Union but can rely only on certain rights in the territory of the host Member State alone (Case C-325/05 Derin [2007] ECR I-6495, paragraph 66).
38. More specifically, as regards the conditions of access to the employment market in the host Member State, it should be observed that, whereas Ms Bekleyen must fulfil the conditions laid down in the second paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80, the child of a Member State national derives such a right directly from Article 39(1) EC, which seeks to ensure freedom of movement for workers within the Union.
43. Moreover, the case-law of the Court relating to the conditions under which rights derived from Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 may be restricted lays down, in addition to the exception based on public policy, public security and public health, which is applicable in the same way to Turkish nationals and to nationals of Member States, a second ground for loss of those rights which is applicable only to Turkish migrants, namely if they leave the territory of the host Member State for a significant length of time without legitimate reason ( Derin , paragraph 67).