Meryem Demirel v Stadt Schwäbisch Gmünd.

• Jurisdiction: European Union
• Celex Number: 61986CJ0012
• ECLI: ECLI:EU:C:1987:400
• Docket Number: 12/86
• Court: Court of Justice (European Union)
• Procedure Type: Reference for a preliminary ruling
• Date: 30 September 1987

Avis juridique important

|

61986J0012

Judgment of the Court of 30 September 1987. - Meryem Demirel v Stadt Schwäbisch Gmünd. - Reference for a preliminary ruling: Verwaltungsgericht Stuttgart - Germany. - Association agreement between the EEC and Turkey - Freedom of movement for workers. - Case 12/86.

European Court reports 1987 Page 03719
Swedish special edition Page 00175
Finnish special edition Page 00177

Summary
Parties
Grounds
Decision on costs
Operative part

Keywords

++++

1 . PRELIMINARY RULINGS - JURISDICTION OF THE COURT - ACTS OF THE INSTITUTIONS - AGREEMENTS ENTERED INTO BY THE COMMUNITY - ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT - PROVISIONS ON FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT FOR WORKERS

( EEC TREATY, ART . 48 ET SEQ ., ART . 177 ( 1 ) ( B ), AND ARTS 228 AND 238 )

2 . INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENTS - AGREEMENTS ENTERED INTO BY THE COMMUNITY - DIRECT EFFECT - CONDITIONS - ARTICLE 12 OF THE ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EEC AND TURKEY AND ARTICLE 36 OF THE ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL

( ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EEC AND TURKEY, ARTS 7 AND 12; ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL, ART . 36 )

3 . COMMUNITY LAW - PRINCIPLES - FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS - OBSERVANCE ENSURED BY THE COURT - COMPATIBILITY OF NATIONAL LEGISLATION WITH THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS - APPRAISAL - OUTSIDE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT

Summary

1 . AN AGREEMENT CONCLUDED BY THE COUNCIL UNDER ARTICLES 228 AND 238 OF THE EEC TREATY IS, AS FAR AS THE COMMUNITY IS CONCERNED, AN ACT OF ONE OF THE INSTITUTIONS OF THE COMMUNITY WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 177 ( 1 ) ( B ), AND, AS FROM ITS ENTRY INTO FORCE, THE PROVISIONS OF SUCH AN AGREEMENT FORM AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE COMMUNITY LEGAL SYSTEM; WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THAT SYSTEM THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO GIVE PRELIMINARY RULINGS CONCERNING THE INTERPRETATION OF SUCH AN AGREEMENT .

IN THE CASE OF PROVISIONS IN AN ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT CONCERNING THE FREE MOVEMENT OF WORKERS, DOUBT CANNOT BE CAST ON THAT JURISDICTION OF THE COURT BY THE ARGUMENT THAT, IN THE CASE OF A "MIXED" AGREEMENT, ITS POWERS DO NOT EXTEND TO PROVISIONS WHEREBY THE MEMBER STATES HAVE ENTERED INTO COMMITMENTS IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR OWN POWERS . SINCE FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT FOR WORKERS IS, BY VIRTUE OF ARTICLE 48 ET SEQ . OF THE EEC TREATY, ONE OF THE FIELDS COVERED BY THAT TREATY, COMMITMENTS REGARDING FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT FALL WITHIN THE POWERS CONFERRED ON THE COMMUNITY BY ARTICLE 238 .

NOR CAN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COURT BE CALLED IN QUESTION BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT IN THE FIELD OF FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT FOR WORKERS, AS COMMUNITY LAW NOW STANDS, IT IS FOR THE MEMBER STATES TO LAY DOWN THE RULES WHICH ARE NECESSARY TO GIVE EFFECT IN THEIR TERRITORY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT OR THE DECISIONS TO BE ADOPTED BY THE ASSOCIATION COUNCIL . IN ENSURING RESPECT FOR COMMITMENTS ARISING FROM AN AGREEMENT CONCLUDED BY THE COMMUNITY INSTITUTIONS THE MEMBER STATES FULFIL, WITHIN THE COMMUNITY SYSTEM, AN OBLIGATION IN RELATION TO THE COMMUNITY, WHICH HAS ASSUMED RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE DUE PERFORMANCE OF THE AGREEMENT .

2 . A PROVISION IN AN AGREEMENT CONCLUDED BY THE COMMUNITY WITH NON-MEMBER COUNTRIES MUST BE REGARDED AS BEING DIRECTLY APPLICABLE WHEN, REGARD BEING HAD TO ITS WORDING AND THE PURPOSE AND NATURE OF THE AGREEMENT ITSELF, THE PROVISION CONTAINS A CLEAR AND PRECISE OBLIGATION WHICH IS NOT SUBJECT, IN ITS IMPLEMENTATION OR EFFECTS, TO THE ADOPTION OF ANY SUBSEQUENT MEASURE .

THAT IS NOT THE CASE WITH ARTICLE 12 OF THE AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING AN ASSOCIATION BETWEEN THE EEC AND TURKEY AND ARTICLE 36 OF THE ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL, READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 7 OF THE AGREEMENT . THE AFORESAID ARTICLE 12 AND ARTICLE 36 ESSENTIALLY SERVE TO SET OUT A PROGRAMME, WHILST ARTICLE 7, WHICH DOES NO MORE THAN IMPOSE ON THE CONTRACTING PARTIES A GENERAL OBLIGATION TO COOPERATE IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THE AIMS OF THE AGREEMENT, CANNOT DIRECTLY CONFER ON INDIVIDUALS RIGHTS WHICH ARE NOT ALREADY VESTED IN THEM BY OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT .

3 . ALTHOUGH IT IS THE DUTY OF THE COURT TO ENSURE OBSERVANCE OF FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS IN THE FIELD OF COMMUNITY LAW, IT HAS NO POWER TO EXAMINE THE COMPATIBILITY WITH THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION FOR THE PROTECTION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND FUNDAMENTAL FREEDOMS OF NATIONAL LEGISLATION LYING OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF COMMUNITY LAW .

Parties

IN CASE 12/86

REFERENCE TO THE COURT UNDER ARTICLE 177 OF THE EEC TREATY BY THE VERWALTUNGSGERICHT ( ADMINISTRATIVE COURT ) STUTTGART FOR A PRELIMINARY RULING IN THE PROCEEDINGS PENDING BEFORE THAT COURT BETWEEN

MERYEM DEMIREL, RESIDING AT SCHWAEBISCH GMUEND,

AND

STADT SCHWAEBISCH GMUEND ( CITY OF SCHWAEBISCH GMUEND ),

ON THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLES 7 AND 12 OF THE ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC COMMUNITY AND TURKEY, AND ARTICLE 36 OF THE ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL THERETO,

THE COURT

COMPOSED OF : LORD MACKENZIE STUART, PRESIDENT, Y . GALMOT, T . F . O' HIGGINS AND F . SCHOCKWEILER ( PRESIDENTS OF CHAMBERS ), G . BOSCO, T . KOOPMANS, U...