Germany, with its immigration rules for Turkish citizens, does not in principle violate EU law in case of spouse reunification after a judgment of European Court of Justice. The German requirements can be used for effective immigration control, as judges in Luxembourg judged. However, y are only permissible if y do not go beyond self-declared objective of immigration control in detail. This must now be examined by federal Administrative Court in Leipzig (case C-123/17).
The specific case is about a Turk whose husband has been living in Germany since 1995. The woman presented 2007 and 2011 applications for a visa to spouse reunification to Germany. These were rejected on grounds that y did not have sufficient knowledge of German. The matter is now with federal Administrative Court, which in turn has turned ECJ on.
The applicant in proceedings at Federal Administrative Court is state capital Stuttgart. She had rejected a Turkish woman's request for a residence permit in 2014, with a lack of language skills and absence of necessary national visa to enter Germany. However, this decision was n tipped by an administrative court.
The city of Stuttgart had been responsible for Turkish woman because, after rejection of her visa applications by German Embassy in Ankara in 2013, she had travelled to Germany via Nerlands. This worked because she got a Schengen visa from Nerlands to visit her sister living re.
The woman's husband is also a Turkish citizen. According to Court of Justice, he first married a German national after he had unsuccessfully applied for asylum. Later, however, he divorced and married Turk in year 2004. According to ECJ, couple has three adult children living in Austria, Germany and Turkey.EU states may restrict access to Turkish workers
Prior to decision of Court, Advocate General had not ruled out restrictive entry requirements – reby supporting position of German authorities. In her opinion on case, she argued that Member States could restrict access of Turkish workers to labour market if, for example, compelling reasons of public interest were necessary.Updated Date: 08 August 2018, 12:00