Case C-209/03

The Queen, on the application of Dany Bidar

v

London Borough of Ealing and Secretary of State for Education and Skills

(Reference for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court))

(Citizenship of the Union – Articles 12 EC and 18 EC – Assistance for students in the form of subsidised loans – Provision limiting the grant of such loans to students settled in national territory)

Opinion of Advocate General Geelhoed delivered on 11 November 2004

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber), 15 March 2005

Summary of the Judgment

1. EC Treaty – Scope of application for the purposes of the prohibition of any discrimination on grounds of nationality – Assistance provided to students to cover their maintenance costs – Included – National legislation reserving the grant of such assistance to students settled in the national territory – Not possible for students who are nationals of other Member States to be regarded as settled – Not permissible

(Art. 12 EC)

2. Preliminary rulings – Interpretation – Temporal effect of interpretative judgments – Retroactive effect – Limits imposed by the Court – Conditions – Significance for the Member State concerned of the financial consequences of a judgment – Not decisive

(Art. 234 EC)

1. Assistance, whether in the form of subsidised loans or of grants, provided to students lawfully resident in the host Member State to cover their maintenance costs falls within the scope of application of the Treaty for the purposes of the prohibition of discrimination laid down in the first paragraph of Article 12 EC.

That provision must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which grants students the right to such assistance only if they are settled in the host Member State, while excluding a national of another Member State from obtaining, as a student, the status of settled person, even if that national is lawfully resident and has received a substantial part of his secondary education in the host Member State and has consequently established a real link with the society of that State.

It is indeed legitimate for a Member State to grant such assistance only to students who have demonstrated a certain degree of integration into the society of that State. It cannot, however, require the students concerned to establish a link with its employment market. On the other hand, the existence of a certain degree of integration may be regarded as established by a finding that the student in question has resided in the host Member State for a certain length of time.

However, by precluding any possibility of a national of another Member State obtaining settled status as a student, that legislation makes it impossible for such a national, whatever his actual degree of integration, to enjoy the right to assistance, and consequently prevents him from being able to pursue his studies under the same conditions as a national of that State who is in the same situation.

(see paras 48, 57-59, 61-63, operative part 1, 2)

2. The interpretation the Court gives to a rule of Community law is limited to clarifying and defining the meaning and scope of that rule as it ought to have been understood and applied from the time of its coming into force. It follows that the rule as thus interpreted may, and must, be applied by the courts even to legal relationships arising and established before the judgment ruling on the request for interpretation, provided that in other respects the conditions enabling an action relating to the application of that rule to be brought before the courts having jurisdiction are satisfied. It is only exceptionally that the Court may, in application of the general principle of legal certainty inherent in the Community legal order, be moved to restrict the possibility for any person concerned of relying on a provision it has interpreted with a view to calling in question legal relationships established in good faith. The financial consequences which might ensue for a Member State from a preliminary ruling do not in themselves justify limiting the temporal effect of the ruling.

(see paras 66-68, operative part 3)

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Grand Chamber) 15 March 2005 (1)

(Citizenship of the Union – Articles 12 EC and 18 EC – Assistance for students in the form of subsidised loans – Provision limiting the grant of such loans to students settled in national territory)

In Case C-209/03,REFERENCE for a preliminary ruling under Article 234 EC from the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court), made by decision of 12 February 2003, received at the Court on 15 May 2003, in the proceedings

v

THE COURT (Grand Chamber),,

composed of V. Skouris, President, P. Jann, C.W.A. Timmermans, A. Rosas, K. Lenaerts (Rapporteur) and A. Borg Barthet, Presidents of Chambers, J.‑P. Puissochet, R. Schintgen, N. Colneric, M. Ilešič, J. Malenovský, J. Klučka and U. Lõhmus, Judges,

Advocate General: L.A.Geelhoed,

having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 28 September 2004,after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:

after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 11 November 2004,

gives the following

‘Within the scope of application of this Treaty, and without prejudice to any special provisions contained therein, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited.’

‘Every citizen of the Union shall have the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, subject to the limitations and conditions laid down in this Treaty and by the measures adopted to give it effect.’

‘1.

2.…

4.‘… in the present state of Community law, as established by the case-law of the Court of Justice, assistance granted to students, does not fall within the scope of the [EEC] Treaty within the meaning of Article 7 thereof [later Article 6 of the EC Treaty, now, after amendment, Article 12 EC]’.

‘In order to lay down conditions to facilitate the exercise of the right of residence and with a view to guaranteeing access to vocational training in a non-discriminatory manner for a national of a Member State who has been accepted to attend a vocational training course in another Member State, the Member States shall recognise the right of residence for any student who is a national of a Member State and who does not enjoy that right under other provisions of Community law, and for the student’s spouse and their dependent children, where the student assures the relevant national authority, by means of a declaration or by such alternative means as the student may choose that are at least equivalent, that he has sufficient resources to avoid becoming a burden on the social assistance system of the host Member State during their period of residence, provided that the student is enrolled in a recognised educational establishment for the principal purpose of following a vocational training course there and that he is covered by sickness insurance in respect of all risks in the host Member State.’

‘This Directive shall not establish any entitlement to the payment of maintenance grants by the host Member State on the part of students benefiting from the right of residence.’

On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) rules as follows:

[Signatures]