TORKiYE BAROLAR BiRÙ G%i. il - Türkiye Barolar Birliği Yayınları

AKTUELLE EMIWICKLIJNGEM 1M STLATSANGEHÜRIGKEJrS -, AUSL.ANDER- UND FLÜUITLINGSRECHTARIİCLEBY the Association Council was revived in 1986, the expectationPRAKASHSHAH of the Additional Protocol (and of other instruments) that freemovement would be achieved by the same yearfaced oppositionwithin the EEC. 6 Tıirkey's application for accession made in 1987was also rejected in 1989. Accession prospects became brighteronce the final phase of the customs union was opened from 1995,with Turkey achieving candidate status in 1999 (Çiçekli 1998; 61-64; Lenski 2006: 286-288, 291).The European Court moves into the breachFor the rights of residence and employment of Turkishcitizens, the show had meanwhiie already moved to litigationactivity in the Member States. Legal action in Cermany andThe Netherlands provoked new moves by the ECJ to robustiyinterpret the Decisions of the Association Councii to secure therights of residence of Turkish workers and their family membersfrom the late 19805. It should be noted that the AssociationCouncii was empowered to settie a dispute itself, to submit itto the ECJ, or to deterrnine another procedure for settlement.It 15 interesting though that such procedures were neveractivated (Lenski 2006: 291). This could be explained by relativeinactivity within the Councii because of the problems cited aboveregarding the overali nature of EEC-Turkey relations. it is possiblethat Turkey prefers to pursue disputed issues outside of theAssociation Council and as part of its membership quest (Çiçekli1998: 63). This background of relative inactivity in the other foramight partly expiain the activist position subsequentiy taken bythe M.It 15 welI known that the ELi had already assumed asignificant role in shaping the European legal order, first byasserting the supremacy of EEC law over national law; second, byits acceptance and encouragement of references from national6 in 1986 the commission did produce a Communication anda draft Decisionto improve the position of Turkish citizens, although the former was notpublished and the iatter was never adopted (Guild 2001:127-128).306