21.7.2014

Official Journal of the European Union

C 235/4

(Case C-176/14)

2014/C 235/05

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicants: Joris Van Hauthem, Ann Frans

Defendant: Vlaamse Gemeenschap

Questions referred

1.Must Article 10 of Annex I of the Agreement between the European Community and its Member States, of the one part, and the Swiss Confederation, of the other, ‘on the free movement of persons’, together with Annexes I, II and III, the protocols and the Final Act, signed at Luxembourg on 21 June 1999 (1), be interpreted as meaning that it seeks the exclusion of the same positions as Article 45(4) TFEU and Article 28(4) of the EEA Agreement?

2.Must Article 14 of Council Directive 2003/109/EC (2) of 25 November 2003 ‘concerning the status of third-country nationals who are long-term residents’ be interpreted as meaning that, in the absence of a specific exclusion of an economic activity on the basis of Article 14(3), a long-term resident of another Member State will gain unlimited access to the Belgian labour market, including to positions which, on the basis of Article 11(1)(a) or Article 11(3)(a) of Directive 2003/109/EC, could be denied to long-term residents of Belgium, or to positions from which EEA nationals could also be excluded pursuant to Article 45(4) TFEU or Article 28(4) of the EEA Agreement?

3.Must Article 6 and Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council of 19 September 1980 (3) ‘on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council established by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey, signed at Ankara on 12 September 1963 by the Republic of Turkey, of the one part, and by the Member States of the EEC and the Community, of the other part, and concluded, approved and confirmed on behalf of the Community by Council Decision 64/732/EEC of 23 December 1963’ be interpreted as meaning that the terms ‘any paid employment of his choice’, ‘any paid employment of their choice’ and ‘any offer of employment’ also cover all positions in the public service, or do the restrictions referred to in Article 45(4) TFEU and Article 28(4) of the EEA Agreement or the restrictions referred to in Article 11 of Directive 2003/109/EC apply by analogy to the application of those provisions?

4.Must Article 7 of Decision No 1/80 be interpreted as meaning that the family members of a Turkish worker who comply with all the conditions laid down in that provision, regardless of their nationality, also have access to all positions in the public service, or do the restrictions referred to in Article 45(4) TFEU and Article 28(4) of the EEA Agreement or the restrictions referred to in Article 11 of Directive 2003/109/EC apply to them by analogy?

5.Can the national court, in a judicial appeal brought by a citizen against a measure of general application which, in conformity with Decision No 1/80, but contrary to higher national provisions, gives Turkish workers and their families access to certain positions in the public service, have recourse to that Decision, given that that Decision has not been officially published in the Official Journal of the European Union?

6.Does it make a difference to the answer to the previous question if the applicant relies on his functional role as a member of the Flemish Parliament in that regard, so that he cannot be equated with an ordinary legal subject?

(1) OJ 2002 L 114, p. 6.

(2) Council Directive 2003/109/EC of 25 November 2003 (OJ 2004 L 16, p. 44).

(3) Decision No 1/80 of the Association Council 19 September 1980 on the development of the Association, adopted by the Association Council established by the Agreement establishing an Association between the European Economic Community and Turkey.