Skip to content

GlobalLawDBby GenieAI

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Search the text of the law

Log in Get an API key

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Log in Get an API key

The Global Law Database. Free to read, built for people and AI agents.

Explore

All laws
Search the text
Sanctions
Map of connections
Compare UK and EU

Developers

AI agents (MCP)
REST API
Bulk data
API keys

Coverage

United Kingdom
European Union
United States
Canada
Australia
France
Germany
Netherlands
Spain
Austria
Norway
Finland
Switzerland
Ireland

GlobalLawDB is made by GenieAI, London. It is not legal advice: check the official text before relying on it. Text comes from official publishers under their licences, listed on the Data page.

ThemeMatch my systemLightDark

European Union
Selma Kadiman v Freistaat Bayern (C-351/95)
Judgment
The first question
34

Selma Kadiman v Freistaat Bayern (C-351/95)

Judgment of 17 Apr 1997law://eu/cjeu/1995/c-351-95/para_34@2026-11-11

34In that connection, it must be emphasized that the purpose of that provision is to favour employment and residence of Turkish workers duly registered as belonging to the labour force of a Member State by ensuring that their family links are maintained there.

Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · Sixth Chamber
Case: C-351/95 · ECLI:EU:C:1997:205
Decided: 17 Apr 1997
Procedure: Preliminary reference
Applicant: Selma Kadiman
Defendant: Friestaat Bayern
Rapporteur: R. Schintgen
Advocate General: M.B. Elmer
Bench: 4 judges
J. L. Murray, P. J. G. Kapteyn, H. Ragnemalm, R. Schintgen
Language: German
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 61995CJ0351

Topics

Association agreements Freedom of movement for workers

History · 1 version

17 Apr 1997Reading

Connections

Cited by 15: Sidika Ucar and Recep Kilic v Land Berlin (C-508/15, C-509/15); Caner Genc v Integrationsministeriet (C-561/14)2 provisions; Natthaya Dülger v Wetteraukreis (C-451/11)2 provisions; Staatssecretaris van Justitie v Tayfun Kahveci and Osman Inan (C-7/10, C-9/10)2 provisions; Fatma Pehlivan v Staatssecretaris van Justitie (C-484/07)2 provisions; Land Baden-Württemberg v Metin Bozkurt (C-303/08); Ibrahim Altun v Stadt Böblingen (C-337/07); Hakan Er v Wetteraukreis (C-453/07); Ismail Derin v Landkreis Darmstadt-Dieburg (C-325/05)2 provisions; Ergün Torun v Stadt Augsburg (C-502/04)2 provisions; Mehmet Sedef v Freie und Hansestadt Hamburg (C-230/03)2 provisions; Ceyhun Aydinli v Land Baden-Württemberg (C-373/03)2 provisions; Inan Cetinkaya v Land Baden-Württemberg (C-467/02)2 provisions; Engin Ayaz v Land Baden-Württemberg (C-275/02)2 provisions; Safet Eyüp v Landesgeschäftsstelle des Arbeitsmarktservice Vorarlberg (C-65/98)
Cites 7: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016)3 provisions; S. Z. Sevince v Staatssecretaris van Justitie (C-192/89); Recep Tetik v Land Berlin (C-171/95); Kazim Kus v Landeshauptstadt Wiesbaden (C-237/91); Ahmet Bozkurt v Staatssecretaris van Justitie (C-434/93); 64/732/EEC: Council Decision of 23 December 1963 on the conclusion of the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey; Hayriye Eroglu v Land Baden-Württemberg (C-355/93)