Engin Ayaz v Land Baden-Württemberg.
Date: 2004-09-30
34. In order to rule on the question referred, it is appropriate to note as a preliminary point that, as evidenced by the very wording of the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80, enjoyment of the rights provided for under that paragraph is subject to two cumulative conditions which are set out therein: first, the person in question must be a member of the family of a Turkish worker already duly registered as belonging to the labour force of the host Member State and, second, the person must have been authorised by the competent authorities of that State to join that worker there.
35. Regarding the second condition, it is settled case-law that, as Community law stands at present, the provisions concerning the Association between the European Economic Community and the Republic of Turkey do not encroach upon the competence retained by the Member States to regulate both the entry into their territories of Turkish nationals and the conditions under which they may take up their first employment, so that the first admission of such nationals to the territory of a Member State is, as a rule, governed exclusively by that State’s own domestic law (see, most recently, Joined Cases C-317/01 and C-369/01 Abatay and Others  [2003] ECR I-0000, paragraphs 63 and 65).
39. The concept must, however, be construed in a uniform manner at Community level, in order to ensure consistent application in the Member States.
40. Accordingly, its scope must be determined in terms of the objective it pursues and in the context in which it is placed.
41. First, as the Court has previously held, the system established by the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 is designed to create conditions conducive to family unity in the host Member State, first by enabling family members to be with a migrant worker and then after some time by consolidating their position there by granting them the right to obtain employment in that State (see, in particular, Case C-351/95 Kadiman  [1997] ECR I-2133, paragraphs 34 to 36).
42. Second, the same objective is pursued by Regulation No 1612/68 – which, as stated by the Court in paragraphs 82 and 83 of its judgment in Case C-171/01 Wählergruppe Gemeinsam  [2003] ECR I‑4301, is intended to clarify the requirements of Article 48 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 39 EC) – and, in particular, by Article 10(1) thereof.
43. In Case C-413/99 Baumbast and R  [2002] ECR I-7091, paragraph 57, the Court held in that regard that the right of his spouse and their descendants who are under the age of 21 years or are dependants to install themselves with the migrant worker under that provision of Regulation No 1612/68 concerns both the descendants of that worker and those of his spouse.
44. Since Case C-434/93 Bozkurt  [1995] ECR I-1475, paragraphs 14, 19 and 20, the Court has consistently inferred from the wording of Article 12 of the Association Agreement and Article 36 of the Additional Protocol, as well as from the objective of Decision No 1/80, which is progressively to secure freedom of movement for workers, guided by Article 48 of the Treaty, Article 49 of the EC Treaty (now, after amendment, Article 40 EC) and Article 50 of the EC Treaty (now Article 41 EC), that the principles laid down in those articles must be extended, so far as possible, to Turkish nationals who enjoy the rights conferred by that decision (see, most recently, Wählergruppe Gemeinsam , cited above, paragraph 72, and, by analogy, with respect to Article 14 of the Association Agreement in relation to freedom to provide services, Abatay and Others , cited above, paragraph 112).