Brussels, 24/06/2013 (Agence Europe) - On Thursday 20 June, the Court of Justice of the EU ruled (case C-20/12) that the Luxembourg legislation which excludes the children of frontier workers from entitlement to financial aid for higher education studies pursues a legitimate objective (increasing the number of persons with a higher education degree), but that it goes beyond what is necessary to achieve this aim and runs counter to the principle of the free movement of workers.
In line with EU legislation (revised EEC regulation 1612/68), which requires member states to give migrant workers the same advantages as it does to national workers, Luxembourg grants financial aid to the children of migrant workers (student grants and loans) to pursue their higher education on its territory or in other member states, but requires them to be resident in Luxembourg at the time that they embark on their higher education studies, thus excluding the children of cross-border workers resident in neighbouring countries. The Tribunal Administratif of Luxembourg, before which disputes had been brought by several students contesting the legality of this rule, asked the Court of Justice whether this legislation is compatible with the principle of the freedom of movement of workers.
The Court replied in the negative. It points out that equal treatment granted by the member state to resident migrant workers for the funding of their children's studies also extends to cross-border workers working on its territory but not resident there. It adds that the condition of residence required by Luxembourg constitutes indirect discrimination based on nationality, as it is liable to operate mainly to the detriment of nationals of other member states, as non-residents are in the majority of cases foreign nationals. In addition, although the prior condition of residence of the student is liable to guarantee the achievement of Luxembourg's objective of promoting the pursuit of higher education studies and significantly increasing the number of people with higher education degrees residing in the country, it is too exclusive in that it imposes one prior condition - that of residency - which is not necessarily the sole representative element of the actual degree of attachment of the person concerned to the Grand Duchy. The Court goes on to state that there are less restrictive measures available which make it possible to attain the objectives sought (making the granting of the loan conditional on the student who receives it returning to Luxembourg after his or her studies in order to work there) and to avoid “study grant forum shopping” (ensuring that the parent of the student has worked in Luxembourg for a certain minimum period), or the duplication with equivalent financial aid paid by the state in which the student resides (taking account of this aid in the grant of the aid paid by Luxembourg). (FG/transl.fl)