A new dawn for the crescent moon: is the fear of an influx of Turkish nationals driving European law?

This paper argues that legally speaking, Turkish service recipients must be granted visa-free access to the EU. The freedom to provide services is covered by Article 41(1) Additional Protocol, and rights in this field should be extended as far as possible to Turkish nationals, as outlined in Abatay and others. Article 41(1) AP’s aim is to ensure no new visa restrictions can be placed on Turkish nationals. Given that the freedom to receive services is, as stated in Luisi and Carbone, a necessary corollary of the freedom to provide services, it is logical that this must be extended to service recipients. Furthermore, this paper argues that the extensive body of case law and Treaty law between the EU and Turkey demonstrate a relationship that is far greater than a simply economic one, as suggested by the CJEU in Ziebell, conferring greater rights on Turkish nationals. The CJEU, as outlined in Article 19(3) of the TEU, has a purely legal role within the EU legal order. It should only rule according to the letter of the law, as opposed to bringing invalid considerations into the judgment. In this regard, the Court must rule that Turkish service recipients are entitled to visa free travel. The CJEU has, however, borne political reasoning in mind in the past, especially with regard to association agreements. Demirkan potentially has huge ramifications, with the ‘erosion of sovereignty’ that comes with opening of borders to third countries. This would open the door to 75 million Turkish nationals to move freely in the EU, and given the recent violent protests in Turkey and the strength of anti-Turkish sentiments in the press. This whole issue highlights how the CJEU is often thrust into inherently political matters when its sole mandate is to rule on the law of the European Union.