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

AKTUELLE ENTWICKLUNGEN 1M STMTSANGEHÖRIGKEITS -, AUSLANDER- UND FLÜ(HTLINGSRECKTARPÜi 6V period of leave to enter to have their applications examined byPRWSKSHAH the Home Oflice. The on-entry Rules (Hc 509) instead requiredthat:"he wili bring in money of his own to put into the business, hewiil be able to bear his share of the Itabilities; that his share of theprofits wili be sufficient to support him and his dependants; thathe wili be actively concerned in the running of the business andthat there isa genuine need for his servkes and investment.26The potential significance of the 1972 Rules and a ruling bythe ECI in a case of this kind, requiring adherence to the olderRules, can be readily appreciated.The EJ heid that Article 41(1) was not in itseif capable ofconferring a right of establishment upon a Turkish national and,asa corollary, a right of residence in the Member State in whoseterritory he has remained and carried on business activities asa seif-empioyed person in breach of the domestic immigrationlaw. However, it went on to hold that Article 41(1) prohibitedthe introduction of new national restrictions on the freedom ofestablishment and right of residence of Turkish nationais as fromthe date on which that Protocol entered into force in the hostMember State. it went on to say that it is for the national court tointerpret domestic law for the purposes of deterniining whetherthe domestic rules app!ied to the app!icant are iess favourablethan those which were applicabie at the time when the Protocolentered into force. Despite being 'overstayers' - since theyhad overun the duration of their leave - the ECJ heid that thestandstill clause could affect the way in which their applicationsshould be dealt with in the Member State's legal system. TheSavaş case therefore started something quite interesting,but also Ieft some areas of uncertainty which were to lead tofurther cases (Ott 2000). it did establish, however, that thosewho had Iawfully entered the UK, and even those who mighthave overstayed their leave to enter, may be eligible to remainSee details at Rogers and Scannell (2005:419). The relevant after-entry rulesare in Hc 510. The governments of France, Germany, Greece and Itaiy alsomade subnıissions before the EcJ, as did the comm ıss ıon.316