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

AKTIJELLE ENIWICKLUNGEN 1M STAATSANGEHÖRIGKEITS -, AUSLINDER- UND FLÜ(HTL İ NGSRECHTARTICLEBY which they had entered into with a non-Member State2 0 ThisPRAKASH S İlAH assertive position was not easiiy accepted by the Member Stateswhich continued to contest the jurisdiction of the Court into the19905 (Rogers and Scannell 2005:332).The ELi then moved to hold, in the Sevince ruling, thatArticle 6(1) of Decision 1/8o, a most crucial provision, particularlyfor Turkish citizens working in Germany and The Netherlands,had direct effect and was thus capable of being invoked in theMember State legal systems. 11 This was of major significance giyenthe uncertainty about the status of Decisions of the AssociationCouncil, which remained officially unpublished, and the fact thatDecisions were not specifically 1 isted in Article 249 EC (formeriy189) as being within the range of binding legal instruments.12As Çiçekli (1998: 71-77) has shown, the ECJ has subsequentlymoved to interpret the notion of 'worker' so as to approximateit to the EC definition with some important limitations. Theright of first admission remains with the Member State andsubsequent rights accrue only in that Member State: there isno free movement across Member States for Turkish citizensbenefitting from the Ankara Agreement. Further, the tests oflegal employment, belonging to the labour force of the state andduration of employment must still be satisfled. Nevertheless,later judgments have been applied to uphold direct effect forother provisions in the Decisions to cover the situation of famiiymembers of Turkish workers, social security, non-discrimination,and the standard to be applied in expulsion (see Guild 2001:122-171; Rogers and Scannell 2005: 325-352, 361-377)13The principle was not in itself new: see Hauptzoliamt Mninz v Kupferberg(Case 104181) [19821 ECR 3641 > and was recognised again in Demirel, para. it.' Sevince v Staatssecretaris vüniustitie (Case C-192189) [1990] ECR 1-3461.12The ECJ had already heid that Decisions of the Greece-EEC AssociationCouncil were part of the Comrnunity legal order. Creece v Commission (Case30188) [1989] ECR 3711.13Çiçekli (1998: 65) cites some of the comments on the importance of theECJ's activism rnade by legal writers in German legal publications in the mid-19905.308