Murat Polat v Stadt Rüsselsheim.
Date: 2007-10-04
21. The answer to the first question must therefore be that a Turkish national, who was authorised while he was a child to enter the territory of a Member State in order to join his family and who has acquired the right of free access to any paid employment of his choice under the second indent of the first paragraph of Article 7 of Decision No 1/80, loses the right of residence in the host Member State which is a corollary of that right of free access only in two situations, that is:
– in the circumstances provided for in Article 14(1) of that decision, or
– if he leaves the territory of the Member State concerned for a significant length of time without legitimate reason,
even though he is over 21 years of age, is no longer dependent on his parents, but lives independently in the Member State concerned, and was not available to join the labour force for several years because he was during that period serving an unsuspended sentence of imprisonment.
In a situation such as that of the applicant in the main proceedings such an interpretation is not inconsistent with the requirements of Article 59 of the Additional Protocol.
The second to  fourth questions
29. According to settled case‑law, the principles laid down in Articles 39 EC to 41 EC must be extended, so far as possible, to Turkish nationals who enjoy the rights conferred by Decision No 1/80 (see, inter alia, Case C‑434/93 Bozkurt  [1995] ECR I‑1475, paragraphs 14, 19 and 20, and Case C‑467/02 Cetinkaya  [2004] ECR I‑10895, paragraph 42).
30. It follows that, when determining the scope of the public policy exception provided for in Article 14(1) of Decision No 1/80, reference should be made to the interpretation given to that exception in the field of freedom of movement for workers who are nationals of a Member State of the Community. Such an approach is all the more justified because Article 14(1) is formulated in almost identical terms to Article 39(3) EC (Case C‑340/97 Nazli [2000] ECR I‑957, paragraph 56, and Cetinkaya , paragraph 43).
31. According to Article 3(1) of Directive 64/221, measures taken on grounds of public policy or of public security are to be based exclusively on the personal conduct of the individual concerned. Article 3(2) of that directive states that previous criminal convictions do not in themselves constitute grounds for the taking of such measures.
32. The existence of a previous criminal conviction can, therefore, only be taken into account in so far as the circumstances which gave rise to that conviction are evidence of personal conduct constituting a present threat to the requirements of public policy (see, inter alia, Case 30/77 Bouchereau  [1977] ECR 1999, paragraph 28; Case C‑348/96 Calfa  [1999] ECR I‑11, paragraph 24; and Case C‑50/06 Commission v Netherlands  [2007] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 41).
33. The Court has always emphasised that the public policy exception is a derogation from the fundamental principle of freedom of movement for persons, which must be interpreted strictly, and that its scope cannot be determined unilaterally by the Member States (Case 36/75 Rutili  [1975] ECR 1219, paragraph 27; Bouchereau , paragraph 33; Case C‑441/02 Commission  v Germany  [2006] ECR I‑3449, paragraph 34; and Commission v Netherlands , paragraph 42).
34. According to settled case-law, reliance by a national authority on the concept of public policy presupposes the existence, in addition to the perturbation of the social order which any infringement of the law involves, of a genuine and sufficiently serious threat to a fundamental interest of society ( Rutili , paragraph 27; Joined Cases C‑482/01 and C‑493/01 Orfanopoulos and Oliveri  [2004] ECR I‑5257, paragraph 66; and Commission v Germany , paragraph 35).
35. More particularly, the Court has already held that a Turkish national can be denied, by means of expulsion, the rights which he derives directly from Decision No 1/80 only if that measure is justified because his personal conduct indicates a specific risk of new and serious prejudice to the requirements of public policy. Such a measure can thus not be ordered automatically on general preventive grounds following a criminal conviction ( Nazli , paragraphs 61 and 63, and Case C‑383/03 Dogan  [2005] ECR I‑6237, paragraph 24).
36. In that regard, the existence of several criminal convictions is, in itself, irrelevant.
38. In that regard, it is sufficient to note that the reservations contained in Articles 39 EC and 46 EC permit Member States to adopt, with respect to nationals of other Member States, and in particular on grounds of public policy, measures which they cannot apply to their own nationals, inasmuch as they have no authority to expel the latter from the territory or to deny them access thereto (Case 41/74 van Duyn  [1974] ECR 1337, paragraphs 22 and 23; Joined Cases 115/81 and 116/81 Adoui and Cornualille  [1982] ECR 1665, paragraph 7; Calfa , paragraph 20; and Case C‑100/01 Oteiza Olazabal  [2002] ECR I‑10981, paragraph 40).