62024CJ0048_RES
Case C‑48/24
VšĮ Vilniaus tarptautinė mokykla
v
Valstybinė kalbos inspekcija
(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas)
Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 12 February 2026
(Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 49 TFEU – Freedom of establishment – Scope – Economic activity – Recognition of professional qualifications – Directive 2005/36/EC – Article 53 – Knowledge of languages – National legislation laying down a requirement that teachers and the members of administrative staff in regular communication with the public and with the administrative authorities employed in a private educational institution are proficient in the official language – Article 4(2) TEU – National identity of a Member State – Protection and promotion of the official language of a Member State – Private educational institution delivering international education programmes – Necessity condition – Principle of proportionality – Requirement of proficiency in the official language with no possibility for exception or flexibility)
Free movement of persons – Freedom of establishment – Provisions of the Treaty – Scope – Private educational institution established in a Member State – National of another Member State with a holding in its capital allowing him or her to exert an influence on its decisions and to determine its activities – Included – Conditions – Education programmes delivered on a stable and continuous basis for remuneration
(Art. 49 TFEU)
(see paragraphs 30-35, 42-44, operative part 1)
Free movement of persons – Freedom of establishment – Workers – Provisions of the Treaty – Examination of a national measure affecting both fundamental freedoms – Criteria for determining the applicable rules – Measure affecting predominantly the freedom of establishment – Exclusion from the scope of free movement
(Arts 45 and 49 TFEU)
(see paragraphs 37-41)
Free movement of persons – Freedom of establishment – Restrictions – Requirement for proficiency in the official language of a Member State – Staff of a private educational institution in regular communication with the public and with the administrative authorities – Obligation on the institution to ensure compliance with that requirement – Whether permissible – Whether justified by the legitimate objective of protecting and promoting the official language of the Member State – Proportionality – Verification by the referring court
(Art. 49 TFEU)
(see paragraphs 45-71, operative part 2)
Free movement of persons – Freedom of establishment – Freedom to provide services – Workers – Recognition of professional qualifications – Directive 2005/36 – Knowledge of languages – Private educational institution delivering international education programmes – National legislation requiring proficiency in the official language by teachers and staff in regular communication with the public and administrative authorities – Obligation on the institution to ensure compliance with that requirement – Whether permissible – Whether justified by a legitimate objective of protecting and promoting the official language of the Member State – Proportionality – Verification by the referring court
(Art. 49 TFEU; European Parliament and Council Directive 2005/36, Art. 53(1))
(see paragraphs 73-80, operative part 3)
Résumé
Ruling on a request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania), the Court of Justice adjudicates, inter alia, on the compatibility with Article 49 TFEU of national legislation requiring a private international school to ensure that its staff comply with a requirement for proficiency in the Lithuanian language.
The Vilniaus tarptautinė mokykla (Vilnius International School, Lithuania) (‘VTM’), a private educational institution in which the majority of the capital is owned by a Finnish national and a Danish national, delivers in English the Primary Years and Middle Years Programmes of the International Baccalaureate and another international secondary education programme.
In May 2022, the Valstybinė kalbos inspekcija (National Language Inspectorate, Lithuania) (‘the VKI’) carried out an inspection at VTM in order to review VTM’s compliance with the requirements laid down by the Lithuanian legislation on the official language. It found that 18 employees of the school, including 5 EU nationals, had not passed an examination demonstrating an intermediate level of proficiency in the Lithuanian language or had not submitted the required documents.
Subsequently, the VKI adopted an order requiring VTM to ensure that the 18 employees concerned, comprising both teachers and administrative staff, pass the State examination on proficiency in the official language by a certain date, or penalties would be imposed.
The action for annulment brought by VTM against that order was dismissed. VTM then brought an appeal before the referring court, which decided to stay the proceedings and to put questions to the Court regarding the compatibility of the national legislation with EU law.
Findings of the Court
As a preliminary point, the Court recalls that, according to settled case-law, a restriction on the freedom of establishment is permissible only if, first, it is justified by an overriding reason in the public interest and, second, it observes the principle of proportionality.
As regards whether there is an overriding reason in the public interest, the national legislation at issue appears to be intended to protect and promote the use of the official language of the Republic of Lithuania, which, in principle, justifies a restriction on the fundamental freedoms provided for by EU law.
As regards whether the national legislation at issue is appropriate for ensuring the attainment of that objective, whether it does not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it and whether it is not disproportionate to that objective, it is ultimately for the referring court, which has sole jurisdiction to assess the facts of the main proceedings and to interpret the national legislation, to determine whether and to what extent such legislation satisfies those conditions.
However, the Court states, first, that that legislation appears to be appropriate for ensuring that the objective of protecting and promoting the official language of the Member State in question is attained, since it encourages the use of that language by persons subject to that language requirement in their relations with pupils, pupils’ parents and the general public and, as regards more particularly the administrative staff, with the national administrative authorities. In addition, that legislation applies not only to all educational institutions located in Lithuania, but also to all the employees of those institutions whose employment involves, inter alia, regular communication with other persons and the need to complete standard forms of official documents.
Second, as regards whether the national legislation at issue is necessary, the Court recalls that measures which restrict a fundamental freedom cannot be justified where the objective pursued can be attained by less restrictive measures. Indeed, while Member States enjoy broad discretion in their choice of the measures capable of achieving the objectives of their policy of protecting the official language, since such a policy constitutes a manifestation of national identity for the purposes of Article 4(2) TEU, that discretion cannot justify the rights which individuals derive from the provisions of the Treaties enshrining their fundamental freedoms being seriously undermined.
In the present case, the Court considers that the language requirement at issue appears to satisfy the condition of being necessary, since it has not been established that less restrictive measures could ensure an equivalent level of effectiveness in the attainment of the objective of protecting and promoting the official language.
However, the rules of evidence required by the national legislation in order to demonstrate that the language requirement is satisfied appear to go beyond what is necessary to attain the legitimate objective pursued. The obligation imposed on the persons concerned to provide a certificate issued by a Lithuanian body based on language tests organised in Lithuanian territory precludes any consideration of the level of knowledge which a person holding a certificate or diploma obtained in another Member State can be assumed to possess on the evidence of that certificate or diploma, having regard to the nature and duration of the studies which it demonstrates.
Third, as regards proportionality in the strict sense, the Court considers that, where a Member State seeks to impose, for the purposes of the objective of protecting and promoting its official language, a language requirement on teachers and certain members of the administrative staff of private educational institutions, it is for that Member State to balance properly that objective of general interest and the rights derived from Article 49 TFEU. By way of example, such a balanced weighting could be achieved by national legislation providing for the possibility to bring the proficiency in the official language progressively up to the required standard after recruitment, to be flexible regarding the level of proficiency required according to the duration of the post or even to introduce an exemption from that language requirement, justified by appropriate circumstances, in particular where no fully qualified candidate applies for the post to be filled.
In the present case, the Court observes that the language requirement at issue is imposed on all teachers and members of administrative staff who are in regular communication with the public and with the administrative authorities and who are employed in a private educational institution as soon as they begin their duties and irrespective of the duration of their employment contract, there being no exceptions or flexibility laid down in that regard.
Consequently, the national legislation at issue does not appear to comply with the principle of proportionality, in the strict sense, in that it appears to be disproportionate in relation to the objective pursued, which it is for the referring court to assess.