CELEX: 62003CJ0209
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

This reference for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of the first paragraph of Article 12 EC and Article 18
EC.
The reference was made in the course of proceedings between Mr Bidar and the London Borough of Ealing and the Secretary of
State for Education and Skills concerning the refusal of his application for a subsidised student loan to cover his maintenance
costs.
Legal background
Community legislation
The first paragraph of Article 12 EC provides:
‘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.’
Article 18(1) EC reads as follows:
‘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.’
Article 149 EC provides:
‘1.

The Community shall contribute to the development of quality education by encouraging cooperation between Member States and,
if necessary, by supporting and supplementing their action, while fully respecting the responsibility of the Member States
for the content of teaching and the organisation of education systems and their cultural and linguistic diversity.
2.

Community action shall be aimed at:
–
developing the European dimension in education, particularly through the teaching and dissemination of the languages of the
Member States,
–
encouraging mobility of students and teachers, by encouraging inter alia, the academic recognition of diplomas and periods
of study,
–
promoting cooperation between educational establishments,
–
developing exchanges of information and experience on issues common to the education systems of the Member States,
–
encouraging the development of youth exchanges and of exchanges of socio-educational instructors,
–
encouraging the development of distance education.
…
4.

In order to contribute to the achievement of the objectives referred to in this Article, the Council:
–
acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251, after consulting the Economic and Social Committee and
the Committee of the Regions, shall adopt incentive measures, excluding any harmonisation of the laws and regulations of the
Member States,
–
acting by a qualified majority on a proposal from the Commission, shall adopt recommendations.’
Council Directive 90/364/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the right of residence (OJ 1990 L 180, p. 26) provides in Article 1(1) that
the Member States are to grant the right of residence to nationals of Member States who do not enjoy this right under other
provisions of Community law and to members of their families, provided that they themselves and the members of their families
are covered by sickness insurance in respect of all risks in the host Member State and have sufficient resources to avoid
becoming a burden on that State’s social assistance system during their period of residence.
Under Article 3 of that directive, the right of residence is to remain for as long as the beneficiaries of that right fulfil
the conditions laid down in Article 1 of the directive.
According to the seventh recital in the preamble to Council Directive 93/36/EEC of 29 October 1993 on the right of residence
for students (OJ 1993 L 317, p. 59):
‘… 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]’.
Article 1 of that directive provides:
‘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.’
Article 3 of that directive provides:
‘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.’
Directives 90/364 and 93/96 were repealed with effect from 30 April 2006 by Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament
and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely
within the territory of the Member States (OJ 2004 L 229, p. 35), which, in accordance with Article 40, must be transposed
by the Member States by 30 April 2006.
National legislation
In England and Wales, financial assistance for students to cover maintenance costs is, under the Education (Student Support)
Regulations 2001 (‘the Student Support Regulations’), provided essentially by means of loans.
Under the Student Support Regulations, students who are recipients of a loan receive 75% of the maximum amount of the loan,
while the remaining 25% is granted on the basis of the financial position of the student and of his parents or partner. The
loan is provided at an interest rate which is linked to the rate of inflation and is therefore below the normal rate for a
commercial loan. The loan is repayable after the student completes his studies, provided that he is earning in excess of GBP
10 000. If that is the case, he pays an annual amount equivalent to 9% of the income earned above GBP 10 000, until the loan
is repaid in full.
Under regulation 4 of the Student Support Regulations, a person is eligible for a student loan for a designated course if
he falls within one of the situations mentioned in Schedule 1 to those regulations.
Under paragraph 1 of that schedule, a person is eligible to receive a student loan if he is settled in the United Kingdom
within the meaning of the Immigration Act 1971 and meets the residence conditions referred to in paragraph 8 of the schedule,
namely:
(a)
he is ordinarily resident in England and Wales on the first day of the first academic year of the course;
(b)
he has been ordinarily resident throughout the three-year period preceding that day in the United Kingdom and Islands; and
(c)
his residence in the United Kingdom and Islands has not during any part of that three-year period been wholly or mainly for
the purpose of receiving full-time education.
As regards migrant workers and members of their families covered by Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October
1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ, English Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475), paragraphs 4
to 6 of Schedule 1 to the Student Support Regulations do not require them to be settled in the United Kingdom and make their
eligibility for a student loan subject to the same residence conditions, while considering that they satisfy the condition
of ordinary residence in paragraph 8(b) of that schedule from the time when they reside in the European Economic Area.
Under the Immigration Act 1971 a person is settled in the United Kingdom if he is ordinarily resident there without being
subject to any restriction on the period for which he may remain in the territory.
However, it is apparent from the case-file that under United Kingdom law a national of another Member State cannot, in his
capacity as a student, obtain the status of being settled in the United Kingdom.
As regards tuition fees, the Student Support Regulations provide for financial support on the same conditions for nationals
of the United Kingdom and those of other Member States.
The main proceedings and the questions referred for a preliminary ruling
In August 1998 Mr Bidar, a French national, entered the territory of the United Kingdom, accompanying his mother who was to
undergo medical treatment there. It is common ground that in the United Kingdom he lived with his grandmother, as her dependant,
and pursued and completed his secondary education without ever having recourse to social assistance.
In September 2001 he started a course in economics at University College London.
While Mr Bidar received assistance with respect to tuition fees, his application for financial assistance to cover his maintenance
costs, in the form of a student loan, was refused on the ground that he was not settled in the United Kingdom.
In the proceedings brought by him against that refusal, Mr Bidar submits that, by making the grant of a student loan to a
national of a Member State conditional on his being settled in the United Kingdom, the Student Support Regulations introduced
discrimination prohibited under Article 12 EC. He submits, in the alternative, that, even if it were accepted that the provision
of a grant falls outside the scope of the Treaty, that is not the case with an application for assistance in the form of a
subsidised loan.
The Secretary of State for Education and Skills, who is the responsible authority for making the Student Support Regulations,
contends, on the other hand, that the provision of assistance for maintenance costs, whether in the form of a grant or a loan,
does not fall within the scope of Article 12 EC, as the Court acknowledged in Case 39/86
Lair
[1988] ECR 3161 and Case 197/86
Brown
[1988] ECR 3205. Even if such assistance were to fall within the scope of the Treaty, the conditions for granting that assistance
would guarantee the existence of a direct link between the recipient of the assistance and the State which finances it.
The national court observes that student loans represent a cost to the State, because of the reduced rates of interest and
possible problems with repayment, a cost which the Secretary of State for Education and Skills estimates at the equivalent
of 50% of the amount of the loans. The average loan made to a student for the academic year 2000/01 is said to be GBP 3 155.
If the 41 713 nationals of the European Union who studied in England and Wales during that year without being settled there
had received student loans, the probable cost to the State would thus have been GBP 66 million.
According to the national court, Mr Bidar is not covered by Regulation No 1612/68 and cannot claim any right to a student
loan on the basis of Directive 93/96.
In those circumstances, the High Court of Justice of England and Wales, Queen’s Bench Division (Administrative Court), decided
to stay the proceedings and refer the following questions to the Court for a preliminary ruling:
‘1.
Whether, given the decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Communities in …
Lair
… and …
Brown
… and developments in the law of the European Union, including the adoption of Article 18 EC and developments in relation
to the competence of the European Union in the field of education, assistance with maintenance costs for students attending
university courses, such assistance being given by way of either (a) subsidised loans or (b) grants, continues to fall outside
the scope of the application of the EC Treaty for the purposes of Article 12 EC and the prohibition on discrimination on grounds
of nationality?
2.
If either part of question 1 is answered in the negative, and if assistance with maintenance costs for students in the form
of grants or loans [does] now fall within the scope of Article 12 EC, what criteria should the national court apply in determining
whether the conditions governing eligibility for such assistance are based on objectively justifiable considerations not dependent
on nationality?
3.
If either part of question 1 is answered in the negative, whether Article 12 EC may be relied upon to claim entitlement to
assistance with maintenance costs from a date prior to the date of the judgment of the Court of Justice in the present case
and, if [not], whether an exception should be made for those who initiated legal proceedings before that date?’
The questions referred for a preliminary ruling
Question 1
By its first question, the national court asks essentially whether, in the present state of Community law, assistance to students
in higher education intended to cover their maintenance costs, in the form of a subsidised loan or a grant, falls outside
the scope of the Treaty, in particular the first paragraph of Article 12 EC.
According to the order for reference, the claimant in the main proceedings is not covered by Regulation No 1612/68.
In that context, the national court wishes to know whether assistance granted to students to cover their maintenance costs
is within the scope of application of the Treaty within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 12 EC, which states
that, without prejudice to any special provisions contained in the Treaty, any discrimination on grounds of nationality is
prohibited within that scope of application.
To assess the scope of application of the Treaty within the meaning of Article 12 EC, that article must be read in conjunction
with the provisions of the Treaty on citizenship of the Union. Citizenship of the Union is destined to be the fundamental
status of nationals of the Member States, enabling those who find themselves in the same situation to receive the same treatment
in law irrespective of their nationality, subject to such exceptions as are expressly provided for (Case C‑184/99
Grzelczyk
[2001] ECR I‑6193, paragraphs 30 and 31, and Case C‑148/02
Garcia Avello
[2003] ECR I‑11613, paragraphs 22 and 23).
According to settled case-law, a citizen of the European Union lawfully resident in the territory of the host Member State
can rely on Article 12 EC in all situations which fall within the scope
ratione materiae
of Community law (Case C‑85/96
Martínez Sala
[1998] ECR I‑2691, paragraph 63, and
Grzelczyk
, paragraph 32).
Those situations include those involving the exercise of the fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Treaty and those involving
the exercise of the right to move and reside within the territory of the Member States, as conferred by Article 18 EC (see
Case C-274/96
Bickel and Franz
[1998] ECR I‑7637, paragraphs 15 and 16,
Grzelczyk
, paragraph 33, and
Garcia Avello
, paragraph 24).
Moreover, there is nothing in the text of the Treaty to suggest that students who are citizens of the Union, when they move
to another Member State to study there, lose the rights which the Treaty confers on citizens of the Union (
Grzelczyk
, paragraph 35).
As is apparent from Case C‑224/98
D’Hoop
[2002] ECR I‑6191, paragraphs 29 to 34, a national of a Member State who goes to another Member State and pursues secondary
education there exercises the freedom to move guaranteed by Article 18 EC.
Furthermore, a national of a Member State who, like the claimant in the main proceedings, lives in another Member State where
he pursues and completes his secondary education, without it being objected that he does not have sufficient resources or
sickness insurance, enjoys a right of residence on the basis of Article 18 EC and Directive 90/364.
With regard to social assistance benefits, the Court held in Case C‑456/02
Trojani
[2004] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 43, that a citizen of the Union who is not economically active may rely on the first paragraph
of Article 12 EC where he has been lawfully resident in the host Member State for a certain time or possesses a residence
permit.
It is true that the Court held in
Lair
and
Brown
(paragraphs 15 and 18 respectively) that ‘at the present stage of development of Community law assistance given to students
for maintenance and for training falls in principle outside the scope of the EEC Treaty for the purposes of Article 7 thereof
[later Article 6 of the EC Treaty, now, after amendment, Article 12 EC]’. In those judgments the Court considered that such
assistance was, on the one hand, a matter of education policy, which was not as such included in the spheres entrusted to
the Community institutions, and, on the other, a matter of social policy, which fell within the competence of the Member States
in so far as it was not covered by specific provisions of the EEC Treaty.
However, since judgment was given in
Lair
and
Brown
, the Treaty on European Union has introduced citizenship of the Union into the EC Treaty and added to Title VIII (now Title
XI) of Part Three a Chapter 3 devoted inter alia to education and vocational training (
Grzelczyk
, paragraph 35).
Thus Article 149(1) EC gives the Community the task of contributing to the development of quality education by encouraging
cooperation between Member States and, if necessary, by supporting and supplementing their action, while fully respecting
the responsibility of those States for the content of teaching and the organisation of education systems and their cultural
and linguistic diversity.
Under paragraphs 2 and 4 of that article, the Council may adopt incentive measures, excluding any harmonisation of the laws
and regulations of the Member States, and recommendations aimed in particular at encouraging the mobility of students and
teachers (see
D’Hoop
, paragraph 32).
In view of those developments since the judgments in
Lair
and
Brown
, it must be considered that the situation of a citizen of the Union who is lawfully resident in another Member State falls
within the scope of application of the Treaty within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article 12 EC for the purposes
of obtaining assistance for students, whether in the form of a subsidised loan or a grant, intended to cover his maintenance
costs.
That development of Community law is confirmed by Article 24 of Directive 2004/38, which states in paragraph 1 that all Union
citizens residing in the territory of another Member State on the basis of that directive are to enjoy equal treatment ‘within
the scope of the Treaty’. In that the Community legislature, in paragraph 2 of that article, defined the content of paragraph
1 in more detail, by providing that a Member State may in the case of persons other than workers, self-employed persons, persons
who retain such status and members of their families restrict the grant of maintenance aid in the form of grants or loans
in respect of students who have not acquired a right of permanent residence, it took the view that the grant of such aid is
a matter which, in accordance with Article 24(1), now falls within the scope of the Treaty.
That interpretation is not invalidated by the argument put forward by the governments which have submitted observations and
by the Commission concerning the limitations and conditions referred to in Article 18 EC. Those governments and the Commission
observe that, while citizenship of the Union enables nationals of the Member States to rely on the first paragraph of Article
12 EC when they exercise the right to move and reside within the territory of those States, their situation falls within the
scope of application of the Treaty within the meaning of Article 12 EC only, in accordance with Article 18(1) EC, subject
to the limitations and conditions laid down in the Treaty and by the measures adopted to give it effect, which include those
laid down by Directive 93/96. Since Article 3 of that directive excludes the right to payment of maintenance grants on the
part of students benefiting from the right of residence, those grants are still outside the scope of the Treaty.
In this respect, it is indeed the case that students who go to another Member State to start or pursue higher education there
and enjoy a right of residence there for that purpose under Directive 93/96 cannot base any right to payment of maintenance
assistance on that directive.
However, Article 3 of Directive 93/96 does not preclude a national of a Member State who, by virtue of Article 18 EC and Directive
90/364, is lawfully resident in the territory of another Member State where he intends to start or pursue higher education
from relying during that residence on the fundamental principle of equal treatment enshrined in the first paragraph of Article
12 EC.
In a context such as that of the main proceedings where the right of residence of the applicant for assistance is not contested,
the assertion, made by some of the governments which have submitted observations, that Community law allows a Member State
to take the view that a national of another Member State who has recourse to social assistance no longer fulfils the conditions
of his right of residence and if appropriate to take measures, within the limits imposed by Community law, for the removal
of that national (see
Grzelczyk
, paragraph 42, and
Trojani
, paragraph 45) is moreover immaterial.
In the light of all the foregoing, the answer to Question 1 must be that 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.
Question 2
By its second question, the national court seeks to know the criteria which a national court must apply to determine whether
the conditions of granting assistance to cover the maintenance costs of students are based on objective considerations independent
of nationality.
For this purpose it should first be examined whether the legislation at issue in the main proceedings distinguishes on the
ground of nationality between students who apply for such assistance.
It must be recalled here that the principle of equal treatment prohibits not only overt discrimination based on nationality
but also all covert forms of discrimination which, by applying other distinguishing criteria, lead in fact to the same result
(see, inter alia, Case 152/73
Sotgiu
[1974] ECR 153, paragraph 11; Case C‑57/96
Meints
[1997] ECR I‑6689, paragraph 44; and Case C‑212/99
Commission
v
Italy
[2001] ECR I‑4923, paragraph 24).
As regards persons not covered by Regulation No 1612/68, paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Student Support Regulations requires,
for the grant to students of assistance to cover their maintenance costs, that the person concerned is settled in the United
Kingdom for the purposes of national law and satisfies certain residence conditions, namely that of residing in England and
Wales on the first day of the first academic year and that of having resided in the United Kingdom and Islands for the three
years preceding that day.
Such requirements risk placing at a disadvantage primarily nationals of other Member States. Both the condition requiring
an applicant for that assistance to be settled in the United Kingdom and that requiring him to have resided there prior to
his studies are likely to be more easily satisfied by United Kingdom nationals.
Such a difference in treatment can be justified only if it is based on objective considerations independent of the nationality
of the persons concerned and is proportionate to the legitimate aim of the national provisions (see
Bickel and Franz
, paragraph 27,
D’Hoop
, paragraph 36, and
Garcia Avello
, paragraph 31).
According to the United Kingdom Government, it is legitimate for a Member State to ensure that the contribution made by parents
or students through taxation is or will be sufficient to justify the provision of subsidised loans. It is also legitimate
to require a genuine link between the student claiming assistance to cover his maintenance costs and the employment market
of the host Member State.
On this point, it must be observed that, although the Member States must, in the organisation and application of their social
assistance systems, show a certain degree of financial solidarity with nationals of other Member States (see
Grzelczyk
, paragraph 44), it is permissible for a Member State to ensure that the grant of assistance to cover the maintenance costs
of students from other Member States does not become an unreasonable burden which could have consequences for the overall
level of assistance which may be granted by that State.
In the case of assistance covering the maintenance costs of students, it is thus 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.
In this context, a Member State cannot, however, require the students concerned to establish a link with its employment market.
Since the knowledge acquired by a student in the course of his higher education does not in general assign him to a particular
geographical employment market, the situation of a student who applies for assistance to cover his maintenance costs is not
comparable to that of an applicant for a tideover allowance granted to young persons seeking their first job or for a jobseeker’s
allowance (see, in this regard,
D’Hoop
, paragraph 38, and Case C‑138/02
Collins
[2004] ECR I‑0000, paragraph 67, respectively).
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.
With respect to national legislation such as the Student Support Regulations, the guarantee of sufficient integration into
the society of the host Member State follows from the conditions requiring previous residence in the territory of that State,
in this case the three years’ residence required by the United Kingdom rules at issue in the main proceedings.
The additional condition that students are entitled to assistance to cover their maintenance costs only if they are also settled
in the host Member State could admittedly, like the requirement of three years’ residence referred to in the preceding paragraph,
correspond to the legitimate aim of ensuring that an applicant for assistance has demonstrated a certain degree of integration
into the society of that State. However, it is common ground that the rules at issue in the main proceedings preclude any
possibility of a national of another Member State obtaining settled status as a student. They thus make it impossible for
such a national, whatever his actual degree of integration into the society of the host Member State, to satisfy that condition
and hence to enjoy the right to assistance to cover his maintenance costs. Such treatment cannot be regarded as justified
by the legitimate objective which those rules seek to secure.
Such treatment prevents a student who is a national of a Member State and who is lawfully resident and has received a substantial
part of his secondary education in the host Member State, and has consequently established a genuine link with the society
of the latter State, from being able to pursue his studies under the same conditions as a student who is a national of that
State and is in the same situation.
The answer to Question 2 must accordingly be that the first paragraph of Article 12 EC must be interpreted as precluding national
legislation which grants students the right to assistance covering their maintenance costs only if they are settled in the
host Member State, while precluding a national of another Member State from obtaining the status of settled person as a student
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 genuine link with the society of that State.
Question 3
By its third question, the national court asks the Court whether, if the Court were to rule that assistance to cover the maintenance
costs of students falls within the scope of application of the Treaty within the meaning of the first paragraph of Article
12 EC, the effects of such a judgment should be limited in time.
The United Kingdom, German and Austrian Governments request the Court, should it so rule, to limit in time the effects of
its judgment, except as regards judicial proceedings brought before the date of that judgment. In support of their request,
they rely in particular on the financial implications raised by the national court.
It should be recalled that 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 (see
Case 61/79
Denkavit italiana
[1980] ECR 1205, paragraph 16, and Case 24/86
Blaizot
[1988] ECR 379, paragraph 27).
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 (see
Blaizot
, paragraph 28; Case C‑163/90
Legros and Others
[1992] ECR I‑4625, paragraph 30; and Case C‑262/96
Sürül
[1999] ECR I‑2685, paragraph 108).
Moreover, it is settled case-law that 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, inter alia,
Grzelczyk
, paragraph 52).
The Court has taken that step only in quite specific circumstances, where there was a risk of serious economic repercussions
owing in particular to the large number of legal relationships entered into in good faith on the basis of rules considered
to be validly in force and where it appeared that both individuals and national authorities had been led into adopting practices
which did not comply with Community legislation by reason of objective, significant uncertainty regarding the implications
of Community provisions, to which the conduct of other Member States or the Commission may even have contributed (see
Grzelczyk
, paragraph 53).
In the present case, it suffices to state that the information provided by the United Kingdom, German and Austrian Governments
is not capable of supporting their argument that this judgment might, if its effects were not limited in time, entail significant
financial consequences for the Member States. The figures referred to by those governments in fact relate also to cases which
are not similar to that at issue in the main proceedings.
Consequently, the answer to Question 3 must be that there is no need to limit the temporal effects of the present judgment.
Costs
Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the national court,
the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs
of those parties, are not recoverable.
On those grounds, the Court (Grand Chamber) rules as follows:
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 EC Treaty for the purposes of the prohibition
of discrimination laid down in the first paragraph of Article 12 EC.
2.
The first paragraph of Article 12 EC must be interpreted as precluding national legislation which grants students the right
to assistance covering their maintenance costs only if they are settled in the host Member State, while precluding a national
of another Member State from obtaining the status of settled person as a student 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
genuine link with the society of that State.
3.
There is no need to limit the temporal effects of the present judgment.
[Signatures]
–
Language of the case: English.