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

VATANDAŞLIK, GÖÇ, MÜLTEC İ YE YABANCILAR HUKUKUNDAK İ GÜNCEL GEL İŞ MELERcourts through the procedure in Artide 234 (forrnerly 177); and, ARJIC[fBYth[rd, the use of the direct efiect principle in aliowing European PRAK4SH SHAHIaw to be invoked within the national legal orders2 it is nocoincidence that the cases brought under the Ankara Agreementand Protocol also took the route of references sent by courts inthe Member States. The Commission and Parliament have notbrought litigation directly to the ECJ, although the Commissionregulariy intervenes in Article 234 proceedings concerning theAnkara Agreement. While Turkeywould naturally bean interestedstate party in the proceedings, it has so far never intervened inproceedings before the ECJ, although it is not self-evident thata non-Member State cannot intervene. lndeed, subject to somelimitations, the ECJ's Statute and Rules of Procedure allow forinterested third parties ta intervene.8Aithough the EL) stated in the Demirel case 9 that the general,open-ended obligation to secure free movement of workers inArticle 12 of the Association Agreement and Article 36 of theProtocol was not directly applicable, it stiil opened the way forfurther chailenges from the Member States because of its refusaita relinquish jurisdiction in the interpretation of the AnkaraAgreement and its upholding of the potential applicability of theAgreement within the EC's legal order. The EL) would hoid theMember States to account for failing to observe an agreementThe UK, soon after its accession, had to Iearn that certain free movementprinciples would take direct effect: see t/arı Duyn v Home Oğflce (Case 41/74)[1975] 1 CMLR 7, [1974] ECR 1337.See, in particular, Article 40 af the Statute of the Court of .Justice andArticic 93 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice. The formerArticle specikaliy reserves the right of EEA and EFTA states ta intervene,but does not mention nor does it exclude Associated countries. See Chrisinternational Foods Ltd. v Commission of the Euro pean Communities (ioinedcases 91 and 200182) [1983] ECR 417 on an intervention by Dominica. 1 amgrateful to Prof. Kenneth Armstrong for informatior ı about this case.Meryem Demirel v Stadt Schwöbisch Gmünd (Case C-12186) [1987] ECR3719. This case also emerges from and represents a chalienge ta thestricter conditions for spouse reunifcation in Germany during the 1980s, achallenge which was not accepted by the ECJ either on grounds that Article7 of Decision 1180 acted asa standstill in family reunion matters oran humanrights grounds.307