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

VAtANDAŞLIK, GÖÇ, MÜLTECi VE YABANCILAR HUKUKIJNDAK İ GÜNCEL GEli ŞMELERunder the less demanding criteria of the 1972 ciomestic rules on AR İİCEF BYbusinesspersons.PRWSH SHAHThe British Home Ofike introduced guidance in January 2003which was meant to clarify its post-Sava ş position. The guidancesuggested that the standstill clause applied only ta those Iawfullyswitchirıg in-country or to overstayers, but not to port applicantasylum seekers on temporary admission, illegal entrants orthose applying for entry clearance from abroad. Rogers (2006:285) notes: 'since it is the case very few Turkish nationals obtainvisas or leave to enter in other capacities, the Government wasrealiy limiting the benefit of the standstill provisions.' Rogers(2006: 287) alsa notes that the British Embassy in Ankara wouidnot, under the guidance, consider applications under the 1972Immigration Rules. Meanwhile, refusals to establish in businessremained high. 27 Stili it appears to be the case that Turkishcitizens might want to present themselves as seif-empioyed togain the protection of the Protocol's standstill provision (King etal 2008: 17).Such applicants had to wait a number of years before furtherciarification was giyen by the ECJ is the case of Tum and Dar ı."Untike in Sava ş the two applicants had arrived in the UK claimingasylum in 1998 and 2001 respectively. They were grantedtempararyadmission.Theirasylum applications had been refusedon the basis they were liable to removal ta Cermany and Francerespectively under the Dublin Convention! 9 The applicants thenapplied for leave ta enter, in order, to continue a pizza business27 Rogers (2006: 287) cites ociaI figures for the period 1 May-31 December2005, during which 32 applications were allowed, 681 refused and 218withdrawn. The precise source of these figures is not clear.R (rum) v Secretary of State for the Küme Department ( case £46105) [2008]1 W.L.R. 94, decision date 20 September 2007.29 The Conventian determining the State responsible for examiningapplications forasylum Iodged in one af the MemberStates of the EuropeanCommunities, signed in Dublin an 15 June 1990 (oJ 1997 c 254, p. i). ThisConvention has been replaced by Council Regulation (Ec) No 34312003 of18 February 2003 establishing the criteria and mechanisrns for determiningthe Member State responsible for examining an asylum application Iodgedin one of the Member States by a third-country national (OJ 2003 L 50, p. ı ).317