Abstract:

In its Demirkan ruling of 2013, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) had ruled that Turkish citizens who wanted to move to EU countries as service recipients though for short stays, would continue to be subject to EU’s common visa policy. As the concept of service recipients corresponds to a large category of persons under EU law, Demirkan judgement of the Court raised great concern both in European and Turkish public opinion and political environment since it was linked to the determination of whether or not Turkish nationals had the right to move to EU countries without any visas. However, the political deadlocks in the relationship between Turkey and the EU accompanied with the prejudices arising from the worries due to any possible mass migration from Turkey to the Union, caused the ECJ to justify its decision in Demirkan in a way that is hardly compatible with the basic logic of law. The ECJ in Demirkan judgement, made a serious return from the positive atmosphere created by its earlier case law. What was surprising for most scholars with regard to Demirkan judgement, was not the political outcome reached by the Court, but rather the way the ECJ justified its judgement in legal terms. This study aims to make a comparative and critical analysis of the findings of the ECJ and the Advocate General in Demirkan judgement taking into consideration the studies concluded on this specific case by national and international academicians as well as the case law of the ECJ.

Keywords: