Raad van bestuur van het Uitvoeringsinstituut werknemersverzekeringen v H. Akdas and Others.
Date: 2011-05-26
67. It is settled case-law of the Court that a provision in an agreement concluded by the Community with non-Member States must be regarded as being directly applicable when, regard being had to its wording and to the purpose and nature of the agreement itself, the provision contains a clear and precise obligation which is not subject, in its implementation or effects, to the adoption of any subsequent measure. The same conditions apply in determining whether the provisions of a decision of the Association Council may have direct effect (see, inter alia, Case C‑262/96 Sürül  [1999] ECR I‑2685, paragraph 60 and the case-law cited).
69. As the European Commission has rightly pointed out, that rule lays down a precise obligation of result, namely the prohibition of any restriction on the export of rights acquired by the Turkish nationals concerned under the legislation of a Member State. Such an obligation can, accordingly, be relied on by an individual before a national court as a basis for requesting it to disapply the discriminatory provisions of the legislation of a Member State without further implementing measures being required (see, by analogy, Sürül , paragraph 63).
72. Furthermore, on grounds identical to those set out in paragraphs 70 to 72 of the judgment in Sürül , consideration of the purpose and the nature of the Association Agreement of which that provision forms part does not contradict the finding that the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Decision No 3/80 is capable of directly governing the situation of individuals.
80. It must be added that, as has already been stated in paragraph 71 of the present judgment, Decision No 3/80 neither makes any exception to nor imposes any restriction on the prohibition of residence clauses set out in the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) thereof.
88. None the less, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, a situation in which former Turkish migrant workers who have returned to Turkey continue to receive, under the first subparagraph of Article 6(1) of Decision No 3/80, a social benefit such as the supplementary benefit, when it is withdrawn from European Union citizens who do not reside in the territory of the Member State which awarded it, cannot be regarded as incompatible with the requirements of Article 59 of the Additional Protocol, pursuant to which Turkish nationals must not be placed in a more favourable position than that of European Union nationals (see, to that effect, inter alia, Case C‑228/06 Soysal and Savatli  [2009] ECR I‑1031, paragraph 61).
93. Pursuant to the settled case-law of the Court, a Turkish national who has belonged to the legitimate labour force of a Member State within the meaning of Article 6 of Decision No 1/80 of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council instituted by the Association Agreement, cannot be entitled under that decision to remain in the territory of that State following an accident at work rendering him permanently incapacitated for work which definitively removes him from the labour market (see Case C‑434/93 Bozkurt  [1995] ECR I‑1475, paragraph 42).
94. In those circumstances, it cannot validly be claimed that the persons concerned left the territory of the host Member State of their own volition without legitimate reason and that such conduct led to the loss of rights acquired under the EEC-Turkey Association (see, inter alia, Case C‑14/09 Genc  [2010] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 42).
95. Accordingly, the situation of former Turkish migrant workers such as the respondents in the main proceedings, who returned to Turkey after having lost their right to remain in the host Member State because they became incapacitated in that Member State, cannot, for the purposes of applying Article 59 of the Additional Protocol, usefully be compared to that of a European Union national inasmuch as the latter, who are entitled to move around and reside in the territory of the Member States and retain their right of residence in the Member State which awarded the benefit in question, firstly, can choose to leave the territory of that State and, for that reason, lose that benefit and, secondly, have the right to return at any time to the Member State concerned (see, by analogy, Case C‑325/05 Derin  [2007] ECR I‑6495, paragraph 68, and Case C‑303/08 Bozkurt  [2010] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 45).
98. Under the case-law of the Court, Article 3(1) of Decision No 3/80 constitutes the implementation and the concrete expression, in the particular field of social security, of the general principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality laid down in Article 9 of the Association Agreement (see Sürül , paragraph 64; Joined Cases C‑102/98 and C‑211/98 Kocak and Örs  [2000] ECR I‑1287, paragraph 36; and Case C‑373/02 Öztürk  [2004] ECR I‑3605, paragraph 49).