Natthaya Dülger v Wetteraukreis.
Date: 2012-07-19
28. According to the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80, the family members of a Turkish worker have, subject to compliance with the conditions set out therein, a right of their own of access to the labour force in the host Member State. In that regard, the Court has repeatedly held that the rights granted by the first paragraph of Article 7 to the family members of a Turkish worker with regard to employment in the Member State concerned necessarily imply the existence of a concomitant right of residence for the person concerned, without which the right of access to the labour force and actually to take up paid employment would be rendered totally ineffective (see, inter alia, Case C-325/05 Derin  [2007] ECR I-6495, paragraph 47, and Case C-303/08 Bozkurt  [2010] ECR I-13445, paragraph 36).
29. According to the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80, the acquisition of the rights set out in that provision is subject to three cumulative conditions:
– the person concerned must be a member of the family of a Turkish worker who is already duly registered as belonging to the labour force of the host Member State;
– that person has been authorised by the competent authorities of that State to join that worker there, and
– he has been legally resident for a certain period in the territory of the host Member State.
33. According to settled case-law, Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 forms an integral part of European Union law (Case C-192/89 Sevince  [1990] ECR I-3461, paragraphs 8 and 9, and Joined Cases C-7/10 and C-9/10 Kahveci  [2012] ECR, paragraph 23).
38. In that regard, it should be noted that the scheme of gradual acquisition of rights which is provided for in the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 pursues a dual objective.
39. First, before the initial period of three years expires, that provision seeks to enable family members to be with a migrant worker, with a view to thus furthering, by means of family reunification, the employment and residence of the Turkish worker who is already legally integrated in the host Member State (see, inter alia, Kahveci , paragraph 32 and the case-law cited).
40. Secondly, that provision seeks to deepen the lasting integration of the Turkish migrant worker’s family in the host Member State by granting to the family member concerned, after three years of legal residence, the possibility of himself gaining access to the labour force. The fundamental objective thus pursued is that of consolidating the position of that family member, who is, at that stage, already legally integrated in the host Member State, by giving him the means to support himself in that State and therefore to establish a position which is independent of that of the migrant worker (see, inter alia, Case C-467/02 Cetinkaya [2004] ECR I-10895, paragraph 25, and Kahveci , paragraph 33).
42. As it is an essential way of making family life possible, the family reunification enjoyed by Turkish workers who belong to the labour force of the Member States contributes both to improving the quality of their stay and to their integration in those Member States and, therefore, promotes social cohesion in the society concerned.
48. Furthermore, the Court has already held that the social provisions of Decision No 1/80, of which the first paragraph of Article 7 forms part, constitute a further stage in securing freedom of movement for workers on the basis of Articles 45 TFEU, 46 TFEU and 47 TFEU and that, therefore, the principles enshrined in those Treaty articles must be transposed, so far as possible, to Turkish nationals who enjoy the rights conferred by that Decision (see, to that effect, Case C-171/95 Tetik [1997] ECR I-329, paragraph 20, and Case C-351/95 Kadiman  [1997] ECR I-2133, paragraph 30).
56. The Court, called upon to interpret the personal scope of Regulation No 1408/71, has repeatedly held that Article 2(1) of that regulation refers to two clearly distinct categories of persons: workers, on the one hand, and members of their families and their survivors, on the other. In order to fall within the scope of the regulation, the former must be nationals of a Member State, or Stateless persons or refugees residing within the territory of a Member State. There is on the other hand no nationality requirement for application of the regulation to the family members or survivors of workers who are themselves nationals of the European Union (see, inter alia, Case C-308/93 Cabanis-Issarte [1996] ECR I-2097, paragraph 21, and Case C-189/00 Ruhr [2001] ECR I-8225, paragraph 19).
57. Furthermore, the Court has also held that the definition of the persons to whom Decision No 3/80 applies contained in Article 2 thereof is inspired by the same definition set out in Article 2(1) of Regulation No 1408/71 (Case C-262/96 Sürül [1999] ECR I-2685, paragraph 84).
58. An interpretation of the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 based on all of the above considerations cannot be called into question by the fact that, as the referring court has observed, the Court has made reference to the Turkish nationality of the members of the family of a worker in several of its judgments on the application of that provision (see Case C-329/97 Ergat  [2000] ECR I-1487, paragraph 67; Case C-65/98 Eyüp  [2000] ECR I-4747, paragraph 48; Derin , paragraph 48; and Bozkurt , paragraph 46).
61. In that connection, it is sufficient to note that the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 expressly provides that the family member’s right to join the migrant Turkish worker is subject to the authorisation to that effect granted in accordance with the conditions laid down by the legislation of the host Member State ( Ayaz , paragraphs 34 and 35, and Derin , point 63).
62. That requirement, which is intended to exclude from the scope of the first paragraph of Article 7 members of a Turkish worker’s family who have entered and reside in the host Member State in breach of that State’s legislation ( Cetinkaya , paragraph 23), is explained by the fact that, in the context of the EEC-Turkey Association, the members of the family of the migrant Turkish worker do not have a right to join him to live as a family; their ability to join him depends rather on a decision of the national authorities taken solely on the basis of the law of the Member State concerned, subject to the requirement of observance of fundamental rights (see, to that effect, Derin , paragraph 64).