ECJ update: Akdas, Jipa, İŞİ Partisi, infiringement actions


 
2) The A-G's opinion in the Jipa reference - see questions below -- is due Feb. 14th. 
 
3) There is an order online on the Court's website (see below) dismissing as inadmissible and interesting challenge to the Commission re Turkish visas
 
4) The Commission has withdrawn its infringement cases against Germany re the reception directive (C-496/06) and the family reunion directive (C-192/07).   
 
 
2) Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Tribunalul Dâmboviţa (Romania) lodged on 24 January 2007 - Ministerul Administraţiei şi Internelor - Direcţia Generală de Paşapoarte Bucureşti v Gheorghe Jipa

 

(Case C-33/07)

 

Language of the case: Romanian

 

Referring court

 

Tribunalul Dâmboviţa

 

Parties to the main proceedings

 

Applicant: Ministerul Administraţiei şi Internelor - Direcţia Generală de Paşapoarte Bucureşti

 

Defendant: Gheorghe Jipa

 

Questions referred

 

( SEQ CHAPTER /h /r 11) Must Article 18 EC (consolidated version published in OJ 2002 C 325 of 24.12.2002) be interpreted as meaning that the legislation in force in Romania (Articles 38 and 39 of Law 248/2005 on the conditions for the free movement of Romanian citizens abroad) places obstacles in the way of the free movement of persons?

 

(2)(a) Do Articles 38 and 39 of Law 248/2005 (national legislation), which prevent a person (who is a Romanian citizen and, now, a citizen of the Union) from moving freely in another State (in this case, a Member State of the European Union), constitute an obstacle to the free movement of persons upheld by Article 18 EC?

 

(b) May a Member State of the European Union (in this case Romania) place a limitation on the exercise of the right of freedom of movement of citizens within the territory of another Member State?

 

3(a) Does the concept of 'illegal residence' used in the national provisions of Government Decree 825/2005 approving the Agreement between the Government of Romania, of the first part, and the Governments of the Kingdom of Belgium, of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, of the other part, on the readmission of persons who are in an illegal situation (the provision on the basis of which the readmission of the defendant was ordered, his situation being that of 'illegal residence') fall within the grounds of 'public policy' or 'public security' provided for in Article 27 of Directive 2004/38/EEC, 1 so that a restriction on the freedom of movement of such a person may be imposed?

 

(b) If the foregoing question is answered in the affirmative, must Article 27 of Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States be interpreted as meaning that the Member States may impose restrictions on the freedom of movement and residence of a citizen of the Union on grounds of 'public policy' and 'public security' automatically, without that person's 'personal conduct' being examined?
 
3) ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE (Fourth Chamber)

29 November 2007(*)

(Application initiating proceedings – Procedural requirements – Manifest inadmissibility – Manifest lack of jurisdiction)

In Case T-250/07,

İŞÇİ Partisi (Turkish Labor Party), established in Ankara (Turkey), represented by R. Sinner, lawyer,

applicant,

v

French Republic,

Commission of the European Communities,

Council of the European Union

defendants,

ACTION brought against the alleged violation by the French Republic of the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey and its Additional Protocols, by maintaining restrictions to the freedom of establishment and freedom to provide services, through the introduction of visa requirements affecting Turkish nationals entering its territory,

THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (Fourth Chamber),

composed of: O. Czúcz (Rapporteur), President of the Chamber, J. D. Cooke and I. Labucka, Judges,

Registrar: E. Coulon,

makes the following

Order

 Facts and procedure

1        By letter dated 20 September 2004, the Directorate General of Justice and Home Affairs of the European Commission (‘the Commission’) replied to a letter sent by the applicant and addressed to the Commission’s President, concerning the implementation of the right of free movement and the compatibility of the visa regime applied to Turkish citizens by certain Member States with the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey and its Additional Protocols (‘the Ankara Agreement’), as follows:

‘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 first employment, but merely regulate the situation of Turkish workers who are already lawfully integrated into the host Member State as a result of lawful employment over a certain period. Accordingly, I am of the view that the visa regime currently applied to Turkish citizens is compatible with the Association Agreement.’

2        By letter dated 19 October 2004, the Council of the European Union replied to two letters sent by the applicant, informing it that ‘according to the applicable EC legislation (Council Regulation (EC) No 539/2001), Turkish nationals are subject to a visa requirement when entering the Community. Moreover the responsibility for handling visa applications rests with individual Member Sates.’

3        By application lodged at the Registry of the Court of First Instance on 16 July 2007, the applicant brought the present action.

 
 

 

Spotted an error? If you've spotted a problem with this page, just click once to let us know.

Report error