Federal Administrative Court, March 25, 2015, Case No.: BVerwG 1 C 19.14
Since 1963, there has been an agreement between the European Union and Turkey that guarantees numerous rights to Turkish nationals due to Turkey’s goal of joining the EU.
This agreement ensures that, in particular, the residence and employment rights for Turkish migrants should not deteriorate compared to the status as of 1980.
Despite these extended rights, Turkish nationals are still prohibited from leaving Germany for an extended period without facing residency-related consequences.
This is because leaving Germany for a prolonged period is considered an indication of a significant change in one’s center of life, potentially affecting residency rights.
In the case in question, the Federal Administrative Court had to decide whether the immigration authority was correct in denying a Turkish national the right to stay because he had left Germany for one and a half years to be with his family in Turkey.
Background of the Plaintiff
The plaintiff, born in 1984, is a Turkish national who entered Germany in 2005 under family reunification with her Turkish husband. In the same year, she received her first residence permit and was required to attend an integration course to support her integration into German society, particularly through acquiring language skills and understanding the German legal and social system.
Interruption of the Integration Course
Due to pregnancy, the plaintiff prematurely discontinued the integration course. After the birth of her child, she did not resume the course, citing the need to care for her child and poor transportation links to the course location. Later, she claimed that another pregnancy and related health issues prevented her from attending the course.
Residence Permit and Application for Permanent Residence Permit
In February 2010, the plaintiff received a further residence permit valid until February 2012, which allowed employment. In 2012, she applied for a permanent residence permit, which would grant her indefinite stay in Germany. The immigration authority denied her application on November 12, 2012, because she could not demonstrate sufficient German language skills or basic knowledge of the German legal and social system.
Legal Proceedings
The plaintiff challenged the denial of the permanent residence permit. The Administrative Court dismissed her claim. Her appeal to the Higher Administrative Court was also unsuccessful. She then filed a revision with the Federal Administrative Court, which considered whether the conditions for granting a permanent residence permit were met and whether she could be exempted from these requirements due to hardship.
Decision of the Federal Administrative Court
The Federal Administrative Court upheld the decision of the Higher Administrative Court and rejected the plaintiff’s revision. It ruled that the plaintiff was not entitled to a permanent residence permit under the Residence Act (§ 9(2) and § 28(2) AufenthG) because she had not demonstrated the required knowledge of the German language and basic knowledge of the German legal and social system. An exemption from the integration course requirements due to hardship was also not applicable, as her reasons did not constitute a hardship case.
Association Law Arguments
The plaintiff also attempted to invoke the association law standstill clause (Article 13 ARB 1/80), which prohibits new restrictions on conditions for access to the labor market. However, the Court found that the plaintiff already had a right to long-term residence under Article 7(1) of ARB 1/80 as a family member of a Turkish worker. This right provided her with a residence permit under § 4(5) AufenthG, granting her unrestricted access to the labor market. Therefore, the stricter requirements for the permanent residence permit did not affect her labor market access, and the standstill clause of Article 13 ARB 1/80 did not apply in this case.
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.
