With the Demirkan case the CJEU was called upon to clarify the scope of Article 41(1) of the Additional protocol to the EU - Turkey Association Agreement and affirm whether the Soysal and Savatli ruling was also applicable to the passive reception of services and, more specifically, to tourists. The CJEU answered negatively and adopted a strict literal interpretation of Article 41(1). With this decision the CJEU affirmed that article 41(1) of the Additional protocol does not apply to services recipients and to reach this conclusion the CJEU emphasised that the EU -Turkey Association Agreement and protocol should be interpreted in the light of the context and objectives enshrined at the time of their conclusion. By doing so the CJEU adopted a formal method of interpretation that does not seem to take into consideration the status of candidate country of Turkey and that appears stricter than the techniques used by the CJEU in other cases. As a result of this tourists and other recipient of services from Turkey will have to keep on applying for a visa to enter the Schengen area until the visa liberalisation agreement enters in to force. KEY WORDS: EEC-Turkey association agreement; additional protocol; article 41(1); ‘standstill’ clause; visa requirement for admission to the territory of a Member State; freedom to provide services; the right of a Turkish national to enter a Member State in order to visit a family member and, potentially, to receive services.
|Journal||Revista de Derecho Comunitario Europeo|
|Publication status||Published - 2014|
Matera, C. (2014). CJEU - Judgment of 23.9.2013 (grand chamber) - Case c-221/11 leyla Demirkan v Bundesrepublik Deutschland - Association agreement with Turkey - Article 41 of the additional protocol -freedom to provide services - Visa requirement: Turkey association agreement does not cover passive reception of services and Turkish nationals wishing to enter the Schengen area cannot benefit from this freedom. Revista de Derecho Comunitario Europeo, 2014(47), -.