Vincent Blaizot v University of Liège and others.
Date: 1988-02-02
11 SUCH UNEQUAL TREATMENT MUST BE REGARDED AS DISCRIMINATION PROHIBITED BY ARTICLE 7 OF THE EEC TREATY IF IT FALLS WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE TREATY . AS THE COURT HELD IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 13 FEBRUARY 1985, THE CONDITIONS OF ACCESS TO VOCATIONAL TRAINING DO FALL WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THE TREATY .
15 IN VIEW OF THAT DIFFERENCE OF OPINION IT SHOULD BE POINTED OUT FIRST OF ALL THAT, AS THE COURT HELD IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 13 FEBRUARY 1985, ANY FORM OF EDUCATION WHICH PREPARES FOR A QUALIFICATION FOR A PARTICULAR PROFESSION, TRADE OR EMPLOYMENT OR WHICH PROVIDES THE NECESSARY TRAINING AND SKILLS FOR SUCH A PROFESSION, TRADE OR EMPLOYMENT IS VOCATIONAL TRAINING, WHATEVER THE AGE AND LEVEL OF TRAINING OF THE PUPILS OR STUDENTS, AND EVEN IF THE TRAINING PROGRAMME INCLUDES AN ELEMENT OF GENERAL EDUCATION .
16 IN ORDER TO DETERMINE WHETHER UNIVERSITY STUDIES FULFIL THESE CRITERIA, A DISTINCTION MUST BE DRAWN BETWEEN THE ISSUE WHETHER UNIVERSITY STUDIES CAN, BY THEIR NATURE, CONSTITUTE VOCATIONAL TRAINING FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMMUNITY LAW AND THE ISSUE OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH SUCH STUDIES MAY BE SAID TO PREPARE FOR A QUALIFICATION FOR A PARTICULAR PROFESSION, TRADE OR EMPLOYMENT OR PROVIDE THE NECESSARY TRAINING AND SKILLS FOR SUCH A PROFESSION, TRADE OR EMPLOYMENT .
17 WITH REGARD TO THE FIRST ISSUE, NEITHER THE PROVISIONS OF THE TREATY, IN PARTICULAR ARTICLE 128, NOR THE OBJECTIVES WHICH THESE PROVISIONS SEEK TO ACHIEVE, IN PARTICULAR THOSE RELATING TO FREEDOM OF MOVEMENT FOR PERSONS, GIVE ANY INDICATION THAT THE CONCEPT OF VOCATIONAL TRAINING IS TO BE RESTRICTED SO AS TO EXCLUDE ALL UNIVERSITY EDUCATION . IT IS ACCEPTED IN ALL THE MEMBER STATES THAT SOME UNIVERSITY STUDIES ARE INDEED INTENDED TO PROVIDE STUDENTS, AT THE ACADEMIC LEVEL, WITH CERTAIN KNOWLEDGE, TRAINING AND SKILLS AS PREPARATION FOR SPECIFIC OCCUPATIONS . IT SHOULD BE ADDED THAT ARTICLE 10 OF THE EUROPEAN SOCIAL CHARTER, TO WHICH MOST OF THE MEMBER STATES ARE CONTRACTING PARTIES, TREATS UNIVERSITY EDUCATION AS A TYPE OF VOCATIONAL TRAINING .
18 IT SHOULD ALSO BE BORNE IN MIND THAT THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT VARIATIONS IN THAT REGARD AMONG THE MEMBER STATES AND THAT CERTAIN STUDIES ARE UNDERTAKEN IN UNIVERSITIES IN SOME MEMBER STATES BUT NOT IN OTHERS . THE EXCLUSION OF UNIVERSITY EDUCATION FROM THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM "VOCATIONAL TRAINING" WOULD THUS RESULT IN UNEQUAL APPLICATION OF THE TREATY IN DIFFERENT MEMBER STATES .
19 WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUE WHETHER UNIVERSITY STUDIES PREPARE FOR A QUALIFICATION FOR A PARTICULAR PROFESSION, TRADE OR EMPLOYMENT OR PROVIDE THE NECESSARY TRAINING AND SKILLS FOR SUCH A PROFESSION, TRADE OR EMPLOYMENT, IT MUST BE EMPHASIZED THAT THAT IS THE CASE NOT ONLY WHERE THE FINAL ACADEMIC EXAMINATION DIRECTLY PROVIDES THE REQUIRED QUALIFICATION FOR A PARTICULAR PROFESSION, TRADE OR EMPLOYMENT BUT ALSO IN SO FAR AS THE STUDIES IN QUESTION PROVIDE SPECIFIC TRAINING AND SKILLS, THAT IS TO SAY WHERE A STUDENT NEEDS THE KNOWLEDGE SO ACQUIRED FOR THE PURSUIT OF A PROFESSION, TRADE OR EMPLOYMENT, EVEN IF NO LEGISLATIVE OR ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS MAKE THE ACQUISITION OF THAT KNOWLEDGE A PREREQUISITE FOR THAT PURPOSE .
20 IN GENERAL, UNIVERSITY STUDIES FULFIL THESE CRITERIA . THE ONLY EXCEPTIONS ARE CERTAIN COURSES OF STUDY WHICH, BECAUSE OF THEIR PARTICULAR NATURE, ARE INTENDED FOR PERSONS WISHING TO IMPROVE THEIR GENERAL KNOWLEDGE RATHER THAN PREPARE THEMSELVES FOR AN OCCUPATION .
27 AS THE COURT HAS HELD ( SEE IN PARTICULAR THE JUDGMENT OF 27 MARCH 1980 IN CASE 61/79 AMMINISTRAZIONE DELLE FINANZE DELLO STATO V DENKAVIT ITALIANA (( 1980 )) ECR 1205 ), THE INTERPRETATION WHICH, IN THE EXERCISE OF THE JURISDICTION CONFERRED UPON IT BY ARTICLE 177, THE COURT GIVES TO A RULE OF COMMUNITY LAW CLARIFIES AND DEFINES WHERE NECESSARY THE MEANING AND SCOPE OF THAT RULE AS IT MUST BE OR 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 .
28 AS THE COURT RECOGNIZED IN ITS JUDGMENT OF 8 APRIL 1976, REFERRED TO ABOVE, IT IS ONLY EXCEPTIONALLY THAT IT MAY, IN APPLICATION OF THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE OF LEGAL CERTAINTY INHERENT IN THE COMMUNITY LEGAL ORDER, BE MOVED TO RESTRICT FOR ANY PERSON CONCERNED THE OPPORTUNITY OF RELYING UPON THE PROVISION AS THUS INTERPRETED WITH A VIEW TO CALLING IN QUESTION LEGAL RELATIONSHIPS ESTABLISHED IN GOOD FAITH . AS THE COURT HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD, SUCH A RESTRICTION MAY BE ALLOWED ONLY IN THE ACTUAL JUDGMENT RULING UPON THE INTERPRETATION SOUGHT .
30 AS THE COURT HAS HELD ( SEE IN PARTICULAR THE JUDGMENT OF 8 APRIL 1976 ), IN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT TO LIMIT THE TEMPORAL EFFECT OF A JUDGMENT IT IS NECESSARY TO BEAR IN MIND THAT ALTHOUGH THE PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES OF ANY JUDICIAL DECISION MUST BE WEIGHED CAREFULLY, THE COURT CANNOT GO SO FAR AS TO DIMINISH THE OBJECTIVITY OF THE LAW AND COMPROMISE ITS FUTURE APPLICATION ON THE GROUND OF THE POSSIBLE REPERCUSSIONS WHICH MIGHT RESULT, AS REGARDS THE PAST, FROM A JUDICIAL DECISION .