THE RIGHTS OF STUDENTS

The Court has been faced with many disputes in this field, since an ever-growing number of students pursue part of their studies in a Member State other than their own. It has thus had to deal with the following issues: does restricting the access of students from other Member States to a Member State's universities constitute discrimination ? May a Member State refuse to grant certain allowances to students from other Member States ? And do the children of cross-border workers have rights in the Member State in which their parents work ?

Access to higher education

In 2004, the Court held that Belgium was discriminating against holders of secondary education diplomas from other Member States (such as holders of  the French Baccalaureate or the German Abitur), on the grounds that they could not access Belgian higher education under the same conditions as those reserved to holders of Belgian secondary education diplomas (judgment of 1 July 2004, Commission v Belgium, C-65/03). The same finding was made against Austria one year later, in 2005 (judgment of 7 July 2005, Commissionv Austria, C-147/03).

In 2010, the Court also stated that a Member State may not, as a rule, limit the registration of students from other Member States for certain university courses in the medical field unless such a limitation is justified on the grounds of the protection of public health. In that regard, the Member State must establish, with solid and consistent data, that there is a risk of a reduction in the number of graduates prepared to ensure health care services in its territory (judgment of 13 April 2010, Bressol and Others, C-73/08).

Financing studies and the allowances granted to students

A Member State may not refuse a student loan or grant to students who reside in that State and who fulfil the conditions to remain there (judgment of 15 March 2005, Bidar, C-209/03). Nevertheless, Member States may reserve entitlement to those loans or grants to students who demonstrate a degree of integration into their society and who have been resident for a certain duration in that State. In 2008, the Court held on this issue that a requirement of 5 years' prior residence complied with EU law (judgment of 18 November 2008, Förster, C-158/07).

In 2012, the Court held that Austria discriminated against students from other Member States inasmuch as only students whose parents received Austrian family allowances were entitled to reduced transport rates ( judgment of 4 October 2012, Commission v Austria, C-75/11).

The situation of children of cross-border workers

In 2013, the Court ruled that a Member State (in this case, Luxemburg) may not systematically refuse the children of cross-border workers entitlement to grants, even if those children are not resident on its territory. It is sufficient that the parents (or one of the parents) have worked for a significant period of time in the Member State in question for a sufficient attachment with that State to be formed (judgment of 20 June 2013, Giersch and Others, C-20/12).

The Court also stated that children of cross-border workers were discriminated against in the Netherlands on the ground that only students who had been resident in the Netherlands for at least 3 of the 6 preceding years were eligible for funding for pursuing studies abroad. According to the Court, that residence requirement was too exclusive (judgment of 14 June 2012, Commissionv Netherlands, C-542/09).