IMPORTANT NOTICE: IMPORTANT: This release, which is not binding, is issued by the Press and Information Division for use by the Press. It is available in all the official languages. The following summary of the judgment must be read in the context of the judgment as a whole. For additional information, or for a copy of the judgment, please contact Tom Kennedy - tel: (00352) 4303-3355.
The Court has ruled as follows:
"The third indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 of the Council of Association of 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey must be interpreted as meaning that a Turkish worker who has been legally employed for more than four years in a Member State, who decides voluntarily to leave his employment in order to seek new work in the same Member State and is unable immediately to enter into a new employment relationship, enjoys in that State, for a reasonable period, a right of residence for the purpose of seeking new paid employment there, provided
that he continues to be duly registered as belonging to the labour force of the Member State concerned, complying where appropriate with the requirements of the legislation in force in that State, for instance by registering as a person seeking employment and making himself available to the employment authorities. It is for the Member State concerned and, in the absence of legislation to that end, for the national court before which the matter has been brought to fix such a reasonable period, which must, however, be sufficient not to jeopardize in fact the prospects of his finding new employment."
Mr Tetik, a Turkish national, was legally employed from September 1980 as a seaman on various German sea-going vessels.
For the purpose of that activity, he obtained from the German authorities successive residence permits, on each occasion for a specified period and limited to employment in shipping. Mr Tetik's last residence permit was valid until 4 August 1988 and stated that it would expire upon cessation of his employment in German sea-going shipping.
On 20 July 1988, Mr Tetik voluntarily terminated his employment as a seaman.
On 1 August 1988, he moved to Berlin, where, on the same day, he applied for an unlimited residence permit for the purpose of engaging in gainful employment on land. That application was refused by the competent authorities of the Land Berlin. The legality of that decision was confirmed by the Verwaltungsgericht and Oberverwaltungsgericht Berlin.
Mr Tetik, who has been unemployed since his voluntary termination of employment in German shipping, appealed to the Bundesverwaltungsgericht.
While it found that the refusal to renew the residence permit was in accordance with German law, the Bundesverwaltungsgericht was unsure whether a solution more favourable to Mr Tetik might not follow from Decision No 1/80 of the Council of the EEC/Turkey Association. It accordingly requested the Court of Justice to deliver a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 6 of that Decision.
The Agreement establishing an Association between the European Community and Turkey was signed at Ankara on 12 September 1963. That Agreement was concluded on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963.
According to that Agreement, "the Contracting Parties agree to be guided by Articles 48, 49 and 50 of the Treaty establishing the Community for the purpose of progressively securing freedom of movement for workers between them". On 19 September 1980, the Council of Association established by the Agreement adopted Decision No 1/80 on the Development of the Association between the EEC and Turkey.
That Decision does not give Turkish workers full freedom of movement within the Community. While it does not affect the Member States' competence to make both the entry into their territories of Turkish nationals and the conditions under which they may take up their first employment subject to authorization, it does confer certain rights on Turkish workers in the Member State which they have lawfully entered and in which they have been legally employed for a certain period. In accordance with Article 6 of Decision No 1/80, Turkish workers who are already duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State are thus entitled to continue to be employed there and, after at least four years of legal employment, enjoy free access there to any paid employment of their choice.
The Court has consistently held that the rights which Article 6 of Decision No 1/80 confers on a Turkish worker in regard to employment necessarily imply the existence of a right of residence for the person concerned. Article 6 has direct effect in the Member States and Turkish nationals who satisfy its conditions may therefore rely on it before national courts.
The Court first of all finds that the situation at issue in this case is that of a Turkish worker who, by reason of the fact that he was legally employed for almost eight years in a Member State, enjoyed ?free access ... to any paid employment of his choice' in that Member State, pursuant to the third indent of Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80.
It thus follows from the express terms of that provision that the Turkish worker has not only the right to respond to a prior offer of employment but also the unconditional right to seek and take up any employment which he freely chooses, without any possibility of this being subject to priority for workers from the Member States.
Second, the Court notes that it has already held, with regard to the free movement of workers who are nationals of Member States, that Article 48 of the Treaty entails the right for such workers to reside in another Member State for the purpose of seeking employment there and to spend a reasonable period of time there in order to apprise themselves of offers of employment and to reply to such offers (judgment in Antonissen).
In accordance with the EEC/Turkey Agreement, the principles enshrined in the Treaty provisions on the free movement of workers who are nationals of Member States must, so far as possible, inform the treatment of Turkish workers who enjoy the rights conferred by Decision No 1/80.
The Court accordingly takes the view that, in order to give full effect to Article 6 of Decision No 1/80, a Turkish worker must, after at least four years of legal employment in a Member State, be entitled to leave his employment on personal grounds and, for a reasonable period, seek new employment in the same Member State, since his right of free access to any paid employment of his choice within the meaning of that provision would otherwise be deprived of its substance. During that period, the person concerned enjoys a right of residence.
It is for the national authorities or, if there are no rules in that regard, for the national courts of the host Member State to determine how long that reasonable period should be so as to enable the person concerned to seek other employment. That period must, however, be sufficient not to deprive of its substance the right which the Turkish worker is recognized as having by jeopardizing his prospects of finding new employment.
The Court adds that a worker such as Mr Tetik, who has voluntarily left his work to seek other employment in the same Member State, cannot automatically be treated as having definitively left the labour force of that State if he is unable to enter into a new employment relationship immediately after having abandoned his previous employment, provided, however, that he continues to be duly registered as belonging to the labour force of the Member State in question, by, for instance, complying with all the formalities required in the Member State in question so as to make himself available to the employment authorities.