Opinion of the Advocate General — ECLI:EU:C:2014:2240
Date: 2014-09-24
Language of the case: Dutch
Subject matter: Citizenship of the Union;Right of entry and residence;Free movement of workers
Procedure: Reference for a preliminary ruling
Origin: Netherlands

Summary — Judgment of the Court (Third Chamber), 26 February 2015 1. Citizenship of the Union — Provisions of the Treaty — Scope ratione personae — National of a Member State who resided in another Member State before beginning her studies in the overseas territories — Included — Effects — Enjoyment of the rights attaching to the status of citizen of the European Union (Arts 6(e) TFEU, 21 TFEU and 165(1) and (2), second indent, TFEU) 2. Citizenship of the Union — Right to move and reside freely in the territory of the Member States — Social advantages — National legislation making funding for higher education outside the Member State concerned subject to the rule that the applicant for such funding has resided for at least three years in the national territory — Not permissible — Justification relating to the public interest — None (Arts 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU) 1. See the text of the decision. (see paras 22-30) 2. Articles 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which makes the continued grant of funding for higher education outside that State subject to the rule that the student applying for such funding has resided in that Member State for a period of at least three out of the six years preceding his enrolment. By making the continued grant of funding for studies abroad subject to the three-out-of-six-years rule, the legislation at issue is liable to penalise an applicant merely because he has exercised his right to freedom of movement and residence in another Member State, given the effect that exercising that freedom is likely to have on the possibility of receiving funding for higher education. In that regard, the integration of students, which is established by the existence of a connecting link between the society of the Member State providing a benefit and the recipient of the benefit in question, can constitute an objective consideration of public interest which is capable of justifying the fact that the conditions for the grant of the benefit may affect the freedom of movement of citizens of the Union. However, the legislation at issue, inasmuch as it constitutes a restriction on the freedom of movement and residence of a citizen of the Union, does not make it possible to take account of other factors which may connect a student to the Member State providing the benefit, such as the nationality of the student, his schooling, family, employment, language skills or the existence of other social and economic factors. Likewise, the employment of the family members on whom the student depends in the Member State providing the benefit may be one of the factors to be taken into account in assessing those connecting links. Accordingly, the three-out-of-six-years rule remains both too exclusive and too arbitrary in that it unduly favours an element which is not necessarily representative of the degree of integration of the applicant in the Member State concerned at the time when the application for funding is submitted. Consequently, such national legislation cannot be considered to be proportionate to the objective of integration. (see paras 31, 36, 41, 43, 45, operative part)