Kaj Lyyski v Umeå universitet.
Date: 2007-01-11
28. As the Court held in paragraph 25 of the judgment in Gravier , the conditions of access to vocational training fall within the scope of the EC Treaty (see also Case C‑65/03 Commission  v Belgium  [2004] ECR I‑6427, paragraph 25, and Case C‑147/03 Commission  v Austria  [2005] ECR I‑5969, paragraph 32).
29. It also follows from the case-law that both higher education and university education constitute vocational training (see Blaizot , paragraphs 15 to 20, Case 42/87 Commission  v Belgium  [1988] ECR 5445, paragraphs 7 and 8, and Commission  v Austria , paragraph 33). The question whether or not the basis of the training is permanent does not alter that assessment.
31. With regard to the freedom of movement for workers within the meaning of Article 39(1) EC, the Court has held that any Community national who, irrespective of his place of residence and his nationality, has exercised that right and who has been employed in a Member State other than that of residence falls within the scope of that article (see, inter alia, Case C‑18/95 Terhoeve  [1999] ECR I‑345, paragraph 27).
33. Firstly, it must be noted that Article 12 EC, to which express reference is made by the referring court and which enshrines the general principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality applies independently only to situations governed by Community law for which the Treaty lays down no specific rules of non-discrimination (see Case C‑100/01 Oteiza Olazabal  [2002] ECR I‑10981, paragraph 25; Case C‑289/02 AMOK  [2003] ECR I‑15059, paragraph 25; and Case C‑387/01 Weigel  [2004] ECR I‑4981, paragraph 57).
34. As far as the freedom of movement for workers is concerned, that principle is implemented and given specific effect by Article 39(2) EC.  There is therefore no need to express a view on Article 12 EC ( Weigel , paragraphs 58 and 59).
35. The Court has held on numerous occasions that the Treaty provisions relating to freedom of movement for persons are intended to facilitate the pursuit by Community nationals of occupational activities of all kinds throughout the Community, and preclude measures which might place Community nationals at a disadvantage when they wish to pursue an economic activity in the territory of another Member State (Joined Cases 154/87 and 155/87 Wolf and Others  [1988] ECR 3897, paragraph 13; Case C‑415/93 Bosman  [1995] ECR I‑4921, paragraph 94; Terhoeve , paragraph 37; Case C‑190/98 Graf  [2000] ECR I‑493, paragraph 21; and Case C‑109/04 Kranemann  [2005] ECR I‑2421, paragraph 25).
38. Finally, although the requirement that candidates for STT courses must be employed in a Swedish school constitutes an obstacle to freedom of movement for workers, it could avoid the prohibition under Article 39 EC if it pursued a legitimate aim compatible with the Treaty and were justified by pressing reasons of public interest.  But even if that were so, application of that measure would still have to be such as to ensure achievement of the aim in question and not go beyond what is necessary for that purpose (see, inter alia, Case C‑19/92 Kraus  [1993] ECR I‑1663, paragraph 32; Bosman , paragraph 104; Case C‑224/01 Köbler  [2003] ECR I‑10239, paragraph 77; and Kranemann , paragraph 33).