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

VATANDAŞ LIK, GÖÇ, MÜLTEC İ VE YABANCILAR HUKLJKIJNDAK İ GÜNCEL GEl İŞMELERfurther details on the scheme, makes it obvious that the UKBA ART İ CEFBYstili lays a great deal of emphasis on its so-called 'fraud and PRWSUSHAHabuse' exception, and immigration caseworkers are directed toexamine applications for any evidence of this.There is aiso a window of time tip to April 2010 during whichsome Turkish nationals who are already in the United Kingdomare aliowed to switch into the business category under theProtocol. After that time, oniy visitors, those already presentwith permission to run a business, and other exceptionai caseswilli be able to switch. The changes announced on 7 September2009 oniy appiy to anyone who applied since 1 June 2009. it isnot clear what happens to those who did 50 before that date.Presumabiy, this backdating has been introduced to sweep upany challenges made to the previously more restrictive regimewhich ailowed oniy those in the UK to switch to business statusunder the Protocol. Despite these most recent changes inpractice, the UKBA stiil does not fuliy refiect the legal status ofbusiness applicants from Turkey as interpreted by the ECJ, andthere is some backtracking evident in the planned ciosure of thewindow for a wider set of applicants from April 2010. As noted,these limited changes to the policy on Turkish business migrantsonly half-heartedly implement the EC.J's Tum and Dar ı decision.Meanwhile, the British authorities appear to be ignoring theSoysal decision altogether.Discussiont is worth thinking about why the ECJ has adopted such anactivist stance in protecting the residence and employment andself-employment status of Turkish citizen migrants, to the extentof recently moving to question even the Iegality of 'external'controls such as visa requirements agreed in common withinthe EU. it is welI known that the ECJ has taken a large role inshaping the EIJ's legal order and, in particular, its free movementrules. However, that background cannot by itself explain thenon-internalisation by the ECJ of the same control-minded andunfriendiy approach which the EU's iegislators have taken vis4-323