Student rights

The rights of students

As more and more students participate in cross-border education programmes like Erasmus+, the Court has been faced with many disputes concerning students’ rights. Key questions include:

• Is it discriminatory to restrict students’ access to universities in other Member States?
• Can one Member State deny financial support to students from other Member States?
• Do the children of cross-border workers have rights in the Member State where their parents work?
• Can international students be subject to additional requirements when coming to a Member State to study?

Access to higher education

In the early 2000s, the Commission took action against Belgium and Austria for making it more difficult for students from other EU countries to access their universities. These countries were facing an increase in students from other EU countries, particularly those that spoke the same language. Foreign students were required to prove that, not only did they meet the criteria for admission to the university in Belgium or Austria, but also met the criteria for admission to the same course in their home country. The Court found against both countries in judgments in 2004 (C-65/03 Commission v Belgium) and 2005 (C-147/03 Commission v Austria). The Court said that this discrimination could only be justified if it was proportionate and did not target nationals of other EU countries.

An example of this kind of justification came later, when a Belgian court asked the Court of Justice for guidance on a rule made by the French Community of Belgium. This rule limited the number of students from other Member States who could enrol in certain university medical courses. The Court held that while this kind of restriction indirectly discriminated against students based on nationality, it could be justified by Member States needing to protect public health. The Court directed the Belgian court to assess whether the restriction could increase the number of graduates available to provide healthcare services in the French Community, or if less restrictive measures could achieve the same goal (C-73/08 Bressol and Others).

Financing studies and student grants

Dany Bidar was a French student who had lived and gone to school in the UK for three years. He then went to study at University College London. His application for a student loan was refused as he was not considered “settled” in the UK. In 2005, the Court ruled that a Member State cannot deny loans or grants to students who live in the Member State and meet the conditions to remain there. However, in order to prevent foreign students becoming an unreasonable burden on a country, conditions could be imposed. Such a condition could be that the student had lived in that country for a certain period of time prior to studying. This would show a level of integration into the Member State’s society. However, as it was impossible at that time for a foreign student to obtain “settled” status whilst they were a student, this rule was incompatible with EU law (C-209/03 Bidar).

In a 2008 ruling, concerning a German student in the Netherlands whose maintenance grant was cancelled, the Court confirmed that requiring students to have lived in the country for five years before starting their studies was appropriate (C-158/07 Förster).

A few years later, the Commission brought an action against Austria because of rules that resulted in Austrian students paying less for public transport. Austria granted reduce fares to children whose parents received family allowances in Austria, a requirement much more easily fulfilled by Austrians. The Court found this discriminatory (C-75/11 Commission v Austria).

In 2011, two German courts asked the Court of Justice about two German students, who were refused financing for an entire course of studies abroad as they could not show that they had lived in Germany for three years prior to this. Both students had been born in Germany, had lived abroad for a number of years with their parents and moved back to Germany a few years before their studies. However one had only returned to Germany 2 years and 8 months before, and the other could not prove he had been in Germany for three years. The Court held that making student financing subject to one single condition in this way was contrary to the free movement of EU citizens. It unfairly excluded students who, despite not meeting the condition, still had strong social and economic ties to German society (C-523/11 Prinz).

Children of cross-border workers

Whilst residency requirements can be used to determine eligibility for student financing, they can have an adverse impact on the children of cross-border workers. These children live in one country, but their parents cross a national border to work and pay social security contributions in this other country.

In 2009, the Commission brought an action against the Netherlands over the fact that only students who had been living in the Netherlands for at least three out of the six previous years were eligible for funding for studies abroad. According to the Court, this residence requirement was too exclusive and amounted to indirect discrimination (C-542/09 Commission v Netherlands).

Some years later, a Luxembourgish court asked the Court of Justice whether a Member State could deny study grants to children of cross-border workers. The Court confirmed that this kind of condition was indirect discrimination. However, to avoid “study grant forum shopping”, the Court said that the grants could be made conditional on the parent having worked in the Member State for a certain minimum period of time (C-20/12 Giersch and Others).

International students

In 2013, a German court asked for guidance on a case involving a Tunisian national whose application for a German student visa was repeatedly denied, despite the fact that he met all conditions for admission and did not pose a threat to public policy, security or health. The Court stated that Member States must admit third-country nationals who wish to stay for more than three months for study purposes as long as they meet the EU’s conditions for admission. Imposing additional requirements would undermine the EU’s efforts to the mobility of international students and establishing the EU as a world centre for education (C-491/13 Mohamed Ali Ben Alaya v Germany).

Conclusion

These judgments collectively demonstrate the Court’s commitment to safeguarding the rights of young people and advancing student mobility across the EU.