||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 110 (Oct)
||Court of Justice of the European Communities (Seventh Chamber)
Judges Klucka (President of the Chamber), Cunha Rodriques (Rapportuer) and Lohmus
||9 October 2007
European Community - Freedom of movement - Workers - Turkish national - Right of residence of Turkish worker's child - Adult child no longer dependent on parents - Commission of criminal offences - Grounds on which Turkish national might lose right to residence - Whether number of minor offences sufficient to constitute genuine and serious threat to fundamental interest of society so as to justify order for expulsion - Lawfulness of expulsion order - Additional Protocol, art 59 - Council Regulation (EEC) 2760/72 - Association Council Decision 1/80, arts 7, 14.
European Community Freedom of movement. 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 had acquired the right of free access to any paid employment of his choice under art7 of Decision 1-80 of the Association Council (on the development of the Association) lost the right of free access only in two situations, namely, in the circumstances provided for in art14(1) of that decision or if he left the territory of the member state concerned for a significant length of time without legitimate reason, even though he was over 21 years of age, was no longer dependent on his parents, but lived 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 a sentence of imprisonment. Such an interpretation was not inconsistent with the requirements of art59 of the Additional Protocol concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Regulation (EEC) 2760-72. Article 14(1) of the decision had to be interpreted as not precluding the taking of an expulsion measure against a Turkish national who had been the subject of several criminal convictions, provided that his behaviour constituted a genuine and sufficiently serious threat to a fundamental interest of society. It was for the national court to determine whether that was the case in the main proceedings.
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary