Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Student Mobility in the EU – Recent Case Law, Reflections and Recommendations

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
European Higher Education at the Crossroads

Abstract

Now more than ever, it appears that both societal and political factors are supporting and stimulating student mobility in all its shapes and forms, most notably through various initiatives on the European level. The Bologna Process, the European Qualifications Framework and the Lisbon Recognition Convention are all examples of this commitment undertaken by the Member States of the EU as well as other European nations. However, upon taking a closer look at the practical reality, we see that many obstacles remain to exist. As EU law currently stands after the Förster and Morgan and Bucher judgments, mobile students do not have a right to maintenance grants, neither from their host state or their home state. Furthermore, the European Court of Justice has – albeit reluctantly – allowed an exception to the principle of equal treatment on grounds of nationality with regards to access to higher education in the Bressol case. Although the recent, somewhat more restrictive attitude of the European Court can be defended and perhaps even welcomed, it does illustrate the need for a discussion and potential action on the European level by the political institutions. This contribution includes a discussion of the recent ECJ case law on student mobility and some reflections on the desirability, feasibility and potential form and content of such future action.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    In 2010, upon realising that this ambitious goal had not yet been achieved, the Council renewed its commitment, outlining the Europe 2020 Strategy in which education again takes a central position. See: European Commission (2010).

  2. 2.

    OMC stands for Open Method of Coordination. On the application of the OMC in education see: Gomitzka (2006).

  3. 3.

    For a clear and thorough introduction to the Bologna Process and what it entails see e.g.: Terry (2008).

  4. 4.

    Declaration on harmonisation of the architecture of the European higher education system (Paris 1998).

  5. 5.

    ERASMUS gives out grants to the participating students; covering the cost of linguistic preparation for the studies abroad, travel expenditure and compensation for the higher cost of living in the host state. For facts and figures see: European Commission (2006).

  6. 6.

    European Commission, The Diploma Supplement, available at http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc1239_en.htm

  7. 7.

    See European Commission, The European Qualifications Framework, available at http://ec.europa.eu/education/lifelong-learning-policy/doc44_en.htm

  8. 8.

    See European Commission, Recognition of Professional Qualifications, available at http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/rec_qual/recognition/in_en.html

  9. 9.

    See the enic-naric official website, at:

    http://www.enic-naric.net/index.aspx?s=n&r=g&d=about#ENIC

  10. 10.

    Verbruggen (2003). See also Garben (2010a).

  11. 11.

    As Shaw notes, the evolution of the interpretation of what is now Article 165 TFEU by the European Court was triggered ‘by the actions of students moving to study and objecting to the unfairness of being charged fees which nationals were not charged’ Shaw (1992).

  12. 12.

    Case 293/83, Gravier v. City of Liege, [1985] ECR 593.

  13. 13.

    Case 242/87, Commission v. Council (Erasmus), [1989] ECR 1425.

  14. 14.

    The reasons why it is in the common interest of the Member States, and hence the EU, to support student mobility are eloquently laid out by A.G. Jacobs, in his Opinion to the Austrian Education case.

  15. 15.

    See on this topic Dougan (2005), Davies (2005a), and van der Mei (2005a).

  16. 16.

    See for a detailed discussion of all these issues Garben (2011b).

  17. 17.

    See Garben (2011a).

  18. 18.

    Parker (2006). Interview mit dem künftigen Ratspräsidenten der EU, ‘300 Sprachen und 500 Dialekte – das ist mein Europa’, Süddeutsche Zeitung, (13th of December 2005). See also Belien (2006).

  19. 19.

    EUObserver.com, at http://euobserver.com/9/20666

  20. 20.

    Cour Constitutionnelle, judgement No. 12/2008, 14th of February 2008.

  21. 21.

    Para. B.12.1.

  22. 22.

    Ibid.

  23. 23.

    Ibid, para. 151 et seq.

  24. 24.

    Reportedly, this led to absurd situations. There were examples of groups of 40 students standing around one cow to observe a caesarean operation. Eventually the operation had to be filmed and broadcasted in the room next to the stable to allow all the students to properly study the operation.

  25. 25.

    Para. 69.

  26. 26.

    Para. 71.

  27. 27.

    See for forceful critiques of the Belgian and Austrian cases and the Opinion of Advocate General Shapston: Hilpold (2005, 2008) and Reich (2009).

  28. 28.

    Cour Constitutionnelle, judgement 89/2011, the 31st of May 2011.

  29. 29.

    The judgment of the Constitutional Court is very interesting in the way it deals with the judgment of the ECJ, as it respectfully complies with the demands of the proportionality assessment, but differs from the opinion on certain particular points. Most notably, it does not agree with the ECJ that the fact that funding is provided by means of a ‘closed envelope’ means that there are no consequences for the State budget. The Constitutional Court points out that, in case of an excessive number of students, either the funding needs to be raised or the quality will suffer.

  30. 30.

    See on this point de Witte (1993). De Witte argues that the European Court, by distinguishing the matter of maintenance grants from tuition fees, contradicted its own reasoning in the Casagrande case, where it held that, in the case of migrant children, there was an intimate connection between formal rights of access and a study grant. De Witte also offers as an explanation for this move by the Court that it acted out of considerations of judicial policy. Lonbay concurs that the European Court made this distinction for pragmatic reasons rather than on the basis of sound logic (Lonbay 1989).

  31. 31.

    Case C-209/03, The Queen, on the application of Dany Bidar v London Borough of Ealing and Secretary of State for Education and Skills [2005] ECR I-2119.

  32. 32.

    Case C-158/07, Jaqueline Förster v. IB-Groep [2008] ECR I-8507.

  33. 33.

    Opinion of Advocate General Geelhoed delivered on 28th of September 2006 in Case C-212/05 Gertraud Hartmann v Freistaat Bayern [2007] ECR I-6303, paragraph 86.

  34. 34.

    Case C-308/89, Carmina di Leo v Land Berlin [1990] ECR I-4185, Case C-3/90, M. J. E. Bernini v Minister van Onderwijs en Wetenschappen [1992] ECR I-1071, Case C-337/97, Commission of the European Communities v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg [1999] ECR I-3289, Joined Cases C-11/06 and C-12/06, Morgan and Bucher [2007] ECR I-9161.

  35. 35.

    A.P. van der Mei, ‘Grensoverschrijdende Toegang tot Onderwijs: Recente Ontwikkelingen in het EU-recht’, op cit.

  36. 36.

    Pechstein, ‘Der Fall Bressol u.a.: EuGH, Rs. C-73/08 (Nicolas Bressol u.a. und Céline Chaverot u.a./Gouvernement de la Communnauté Française)’, DeLuxe Europarecht aktuell (04/2010).

  37. 37.

    Opinion of Advocate General D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer of 20th of March 2007 in Joined Cases C-11/06 and C-12/06 Morgan and Bucher [2007] ECR I-9161, para. 88.

  38. 38.

    Para. 28 of the judgment.

  39. 39.

    Opinion of Advocate General D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer, footnote 78.

  40. 40.

    See on the competence of the EU in higher education Garben (2011b).

  41. 41.

    Ibid.

References

  • Belien, P. (2006, January 13). Austria and Denmark Fear American-Style Supreme Court. The Brussels Journal.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, G. (2005a). Any place I hang my hat, or: Residence is the new nationality. European Law Journal, 11(1), 43–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davies, G. (2005b). Higher education, equal access, and residence conditions: Does EU law allow member states to charge higher fees to students not previously resident? Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 12, 227.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, G. (2006). The process and side-effects of harmonization of European welfare states (Jean Monnet Working Paper No. 2, pp. 24–25). New York: New York University.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Witte, B. (1993). Higher education and the constitution of the European Community. In C. Gellert (Ed.), Higher education in Europe (pp. 185–202). London: Kingsley Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dougan, M. (2005). Fees, grants, loans and dole cheques: Who covers the cost of migrant education within the EU? Common Market Law Review, 32, 943–986.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2006). The history of European cooperation in education and training. An example of Europe in the making. Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2007). Annex to the 24th annual report from the Commission on monitoring the application of community law (2006) – Situation in the different sectors (Staff Working Document). COM(2007) 398 final.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2010). Europe 2020: A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. Brussels, COM(2010) 2020.

    Google Scholar 

  • Federal Chancellery Austria. (2007, October 22). Available at http://www.austria.gv.at/site/infodate__22.10.2007/5396/default.aspx#id25402

  • Garben, S. (2008). The Belgian/Austrian Education Saga (Harvard European Law Working Paper No. 1). Cambridge: Harvard Law School.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garben, S. (2010a). The Bologna Process from a European law perspective. European Law Journal, 16, 186–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garben, S. (2010b). Case C-73/08, Bressol, Chaverot and Others v. Gouvernement de la Communauté française. Common Market Law Review, 47, 1493–1510.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garben, S. (2011a). On recognition of qualifications for academic and professional purposes. Tilburg Law Review, 16, 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garben, S. (2011b). EU higher education law. The Bologna Process and harmonization by stealth. Alphen aan de Rijn: Kluwer Law International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldirova, R. (2007, October 18). EU seeks to close its institutional wrangling. EU Observer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gomitzka, A. (2006, December) The open method of coordination as practice. A watershed in European education policy? (Arena Working Paper, No. 16). Oslo: Arena.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilpold, P. (2005). Hochschulzugang und Unionsbürgerschaft – Das Urteil des EuGH vom 7. 7. 2005 in der Rechtssache C-147/03, Kommission gegen Österreich. Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht, 21, 647.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hilpold, P. (2008). Unionsbürgerschaft und Bildungsrechte, oder, Der EuGH-Richter als “Künstler”. In G. Roth (Ed.), Der EuGH und die Souveränität der Mitgliedstaaten. Vienna/Bern/Stuttgart: Linde/Stämpfi/Boorberg.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lonbay, J. (1989). Education and the law: The community context. European Law Review, 14, 370.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, V., & Taylor, C. (2008). The Treaty of Lisbon: Amendments to the Treaty on European Union (Research Paper 08/09). International Affairs and Defence Section, House of Commons Library, London.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parker G. (2006, April 20). Austrian Chancellor urges EU Court to heed national feelings. Financial Times.

    Google Scholar 

  • RAPID Press Release. (2007a, January 24). Free movement of students: The Commission sends letters of formal notice to Austria and Belgium (IP/07/76). Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • RAPID Press Release. (2007b, November 28). Access to higher education: The Commission suspends its infringement cases against Austria and Belgium (IP/07/1788). Brussels: European Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reich, N. (2009). Herkunftsprinzip oder Diskriminierung als Maßstab für Studentenfreizügigkeit. Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht, 18, 637.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rieder, C. (2006). Case C-147/03, Commission of the European Communities v. Republic of Austria, Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) 7th of July 2005, not yet reported. Common Market Law Review, 43, 1711–1726.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, J. (1992). Education and the law in the European community. Journal of Law & Education, 21(3), 422.

    Google Scholar 

  • Terry, L. (2008). The Bologna Process and its impact in Europe: It’s so much more than degree changes. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 41(1), 107–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Mei, A. P. (2005a). EU law and education: Promotion of student mobility versus protection of the education systems. In M. Dougan & E. Spaventa (Eds.), Social welfare and EU law. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Mei, A. P. (2005b). Freedom of movement for students: In search of a more satisfactory balance between the goal to promote student mobility and the need to protect education systems. In H. Schneider (Ed.), Migration, integration and citizenship, a challenge for Europe’s future (Vol. I, pp. 172–176). Maastricht: Forum Maastricht.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verbruggen, M. (2003). De Bolognaverklaring kritisch getoetst aan het Europees onderwijsbeleid. SEW – Tijdschrift voor Europees en Economisch Recht, 51(6), 199–212.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK

    Sacha Garben

Authors
  1. Sacha Garben
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sacha Garben .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of Bucharest, Bucharest, Romania

    Adrian Curaj

  2. Institute of Education, London, United Kingdom

    Peter Scott

  3. , Sociology Department, Bucharest University, Bucharest, Romania

    Lazăr Vlasceanu

  4. European University Association, Brussels, Belgium

    Lesley Wilson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Garben, S. (2012). Student Mobility in the EU – Recent Case Law, Reflections and Recommendations. In: Curaj, A., Scott, P., Vlasceanu, L., Wilson, L. (eds) European Higher Education at the Crossroads. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-3937-6_25

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation