Georg Dörr v Sicherheitsdirektion für das Bundesland Kärnten and Ibrahim Ünal v Sicherheitsdirektion für das Bundesland Vorarlberg (C-136/03)

Judgment of 2 Jun 2005

law://eu/cjeu/2003/c-136-03/para_66@2026-11-14

66Such an interpretation is justified by the objective of progressively securing freedom of movement for Turkish workers, as set out in Article 12 of the Association Agreement. The social provisions of Decision No 1/80 constitute a further stage in securing that freedom (see, inter alia, Case C-1/97 Birden [1998] ECR I-7747, paragraph 52, and Case C-188/00 Kurz [2002] ECR I-10691, paragraph 40). In particular, Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80 grants to migrant Turkish workers who fulfil its conditions precise rights with regard to the exercise of employment (see Joined Cases C-317/01 and C-369/01 Abatay and Others [2003] ECR I-12301, paragraph 78). It is established case-law that Article 6(1) of Decision No 1/80, which has been recognised as having direct effect, creates an individual right as regards employment and a correlated right of residence (see Case C-192/89 Sevince [1990] ECR I-3461, paragraphs 29 and 31; Case C-237/91 Kus [1992] ECR I-6781, paragraph 33; Case C-171/95 Tetik [1997] ECR I-329, paragraphs 26, 30 and 31; and Kurz, cited above, paragraphs 26 and 27).

Georg Dörr v Sicherheitsdirektion für das Bundesland Kärnten and Ibrahim Ünal v Sicherheitsdirektion für das Bundesland Vorarlberg (C-136/03)

History · 1 version

Connections

Key facts