European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands.
Date: 2016-06-02
22


In that regard, it is important to note that, in considering an action brought under Article 258 TFEU, regard must be had only to the form of order sought in the original application (see judgment of 22 October 2014 in Commission v Netherlands, C‑252/13, EU:C:2014:2312, paragraph 28 and the case-law cited).
32


In accordance with Article 120(c) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice and the case-law relating to that provision, an application initiating proceedings in respect of direct actions must state the subject-matter of the proceedings and set out a summary of the pleas in law on which the application is based; that statement must be sufficiently clear and precise to enable the defendant to prepare his defence and the Court to rule on the application. It follows that the essential points of law and of fact on which such an action is based must be indicated coherently and intelligibly in the application itself (see, to that effect, judgment of 22 October 2014 in Commission v Netherlands, C‑252/13, EU:C:2014:2312, paragraph 33 and the case-law cited).
33


The Court has also held that, where an action is brought under Article 258 TFEU, the application must set out the complaints coherently and precisely, so that the Member State and the Court may ascertain exactly the scope of the alleged infringement of EU law, a condition that must be satisfied if the Member State is to be able to present an effective defence and the Court to determine whether there has been a breach of obligations, as alleged (see judgment of 22 October 2014 in Commission v Netherlands, C‑252/13, EU:C:2014:2312, paragraph 34 and the case-law cited).
34


Those complaints must be set out unambiguously so that the Court does not rule ultra petita or indeed fail to rule on one of them (see, to that effect, judgment of 30 September 2010 in Commission v Belgium, C‑132/09, EU:C:2010:562, paragraph 37 and the case-law cited).
35


In particular, the Commission’s action must contain a coherent and detailed statement of the reasons which have led it to conclude that the Member State in question has failed to fulfil one of its obligations under the Treaties (see judgment of 6 September 2012 in Commission v Belgium, C‑150/11, EU:C:2012:539, paragraphs 27 and the case-law cited). Accordingly, a contradiction in the heads of claim put forward by the Commission in support of its action for failure to fulfil obligations does not satisfy the requirements imposed (see, to that effect, judgments of 1 February 2007 in Commission v United Kingdom, C‑199/04, EU:C:2007:72, paragraph 25, and of 28 June 2007 in Commission v Spain, C‑235/04, EU:C:2007:386, paragraph 47).
43


As a preliminary point, it should be noted that, although the Kingdom of the Netherlands has not raised a plea of inadmissibility in respect of the present complaint, the Court may of its own motion examine whether the conditions laid down in Article 258 TFEU for bringing an action for failure to fulfil obligations are satisfied in so far as it is concerned (see, by analogy, judgment of 19 December 2012 in Commission v Italy, C‑68/11, EU:C:2012:815, paragraph 49 and the case-law cited).
75


As the Court has held on numerous occasions, the status of citizen of the Union is destined to be the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States, enabling those among such nationals who find themselves in the same situation to receive, as regards the material scope of the FEU Treaty, the same treatment in law irrespective of their nationality, subject to such exceptions as are provided for in that regard (see, to that effect, judgments of 20 September 2001 in Grzelczyk, C‑184/99, EU:C:2001:458, paragraph 31, and of 4 October 2012 in Commission v Austria, C‑75/11, EU:C:2012:605, paragraph 38).
76


Article 18 TFEU, which prohibits any discrimination on grounds of nationality, is applicable in all situations falling within the material scope of EU law, and those situations include the exercise of the freedom conferred by Article 21 TFEU to move and reside within the territory of the Member States (see, to that effect, judgment of 4 October 2012 in Commission v Austria, C‑75/11, EU:C:2012:605, paragraph 39 and the case-law cited).
77


It is apparent from that case-law that that prohibition also covers situations concerning the conditions of access to vocational training, and that both higher education and university education constitute vocational training (judgment of 4 October 2012 in Commission v Austria, C‑75/11, EU:C:2012:605, paragraph 40 and the case-law cited).
78


A national of a Member State of the European Union who is studying in another Member State is entitled, under Articles 18 TFEU and 21 TFEU, to move and reside freely within the territory of the host Member State, without being subject to direct or indirect discrimination on grounds of nationality (see, to that effect, judgment of 4 October 2012 in Commission v Austria, C‑75/11, EU:C:2012:605, paragraph 41 and the case-law cited).
79


As to the question whether financial support for travel costs falls within the scope of the treaties, for the purposes of the first paragraph of Article 18 TFEU, it should be noted that the Court has previously held that a scheme providing for reduced transport fares for students falls within the scope of the FEU Treaty in so far as it enables them, directly or indirectly, to cover their maintenance costs (see judgment of 4 October 2012 in Commission v Austria, C‑75/11, EU:C:2012:605, paragraph 43).
80


Furthermore, as the Court has previously held, the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality, enshrined as a general principle in Article 18 TFEU and laid down specifically in respect of Union citizens coming within the scope of Directive 2004/38 in Article 24 thereof, prohibits, inter alia, direct discrimination on grounds of nationality (see, to that effect, judgment of 4 October 2012 in Commission v Austria, C‑75/11, EU:C:2012:605, paragraph 49 and the case-law cited).
81


Although it is true that the aim of Directive 2004/38 is to facilitate and strengthen the exercise of the primary and individual right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States that is conferred directly on each citizen of the Union, the fact remains that the subject matter of the directive concerns, as is apparent from Article 1(a), the conditions governing the exercise of that right (judgment of 5 May 2011 in McCarthy, C‑434/09, EU:C:2011:277, paragraph 33).
82


In particular, it must be recalled that, so far as concerns access to financial assistance, such as financial support for travel costs, a Union citizen may claim equal treatment with nationals of the host Member State under Article 24(1) of Directive 2004/38 only if his residence in the territory of that State complies with the conditions of that directive (see, to that effect, judgment of 15 September 2015 in Alimanovic, C‑67/14, EU:C:2015:597, paragraph 49 and the case-law cited).
86


Since Article 24(2) is a derogation from the principle of equal treatment provided for in Article 18 TFEU, of which Article 24(1) of Directive 2004/38 is merely a specific expression, it must be interpreted narrowly (judgment of 4 October 2012 in Commission v Austria, C‑75/11, EU:C:2012:605, paragraph 54).
87


Although, as is apparent from paragraph 79 of the present judgment, financial support for travel costs constitutes maintenance aid for the students concerned, only maintenance aid for studies ‘consisting in student grants or student loans’ falls within the scope of the derogation from the principle of equal treatment under Article 24(2) of Directive 2004/38 (see, to that effect, judgment of 4 October 2012 in Commission v Austria, C‑75/11, EU:C:2012:605, paragraph 55).