Federal Administrative Court, February 19, 2015, Case No.: BVerwG 1 C 9.14
There has long been an association agreement between Turkey and the EU, which is legally classified as an international treaty.
The aim of this agreement was and still is to strengthen trade and economic relations between the EU and Turkey, among other things, through the gradual establishment of a customs union and the alignment of their respective economic policies.
In addition to the association agreement, the contracting parties adopted an Additional Protocol, which outlined the details and timeline for the transition phase leading to the realization of the customs union.
This Additional Protocol contains a „standstill clause“ in Article 41(1) concerning the freedom of establishment and the provision of services.
This standstill clause stipulates that the contracting parties shall not introduce any new restrictions on the freedom of establishment and the free movement of services among themselves.
This clause remains relevant today in determining whether Turkish nationals are subject to visa requirements. This was the issue in the case discussed here.
Background of the Case
The plaintiff, a Turkish national, was a self-employed entrepreneur in the field of software consulting. He was also the owner of a company based in Istanbul.
Contractual Agreement
The plaintiff’s company entered into a service contract with a company based in Gothenburg, Sweden. The goal was to prepare „detailed technical specifications“ for a German software company at one of its clients, a major German corporation.
Visa Application and Rejection
On April 23, 2010, the plaintiff applied for a Schengen visa for business travel for 45 days at the German Consulate General in Istanbul. This application was rejected on April 27, 2010.
Appeal and Plaintiff’s Argument
The plaintiff appealed against the rejection, arguing that under Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol to the EEC/Turkey Association Agreement in conjunction with Section 1(2) No. 1 of the 1965 Regulation on the Implementation of the Aliens Act, he was entitled to enter visa-free to provide the aforementioned services.
Decision of the Consulate General
On May 26, 2010, the Consulate General rejected the plaintiff’s appeal. It was communicated that the plaintiff was not entitled to enter visa-free for business purposes. The application for a visa-free Schengen visa was denied.
Federal Administrative Court’s Judgment
The Federal Administrative Court ruled that Article 41(1) of the Additional Protocol to the EEC/Turkey Association Agreement does indeed include a standstill clause regarding the legal status of service providers from Turkey. However, in this specific case, there was no deterioration in the plaintiff’s situation. As early as 1973, when the standstill clause came into force, Turkish nationals required a visa to enter Germany for the purpose of employment. The provision of services, such as preparing technical specifications, falls under the category of employment. An exception to this applied only to employees of a Turkish company, not to self-employed individuals like the plaintiff.
Source: Federal Administrative Court
Important Note: The content of this article has been prepared to the best of our knowledge and belief. However, due to the complexity and constant evolution of the subject matter, we must exclude liability and warranty. Important Notice: The content of this article has been created to the best of our knowledge and understanding. However, due to the complexity and constant changes in the subject matter, we must exclude any liability and warranty.
If you need legal advice, feel free to call us at 0221 – 80187670 or email us at info@mth-partner.de.
Lawyers in Cologne advise and represent you in immigration law.