CJEU Case C-830/18 / Judgment

Landkreis Südliche Weinstraße v PF and Others
Policy area
Education, training, youth, sport
Deciding body type
Court of Justice of the European Union
Deciding body
Court (Ninth Chamber)
Type
Decision
Decision date
02/04/2020
ECLI (European case law identifier)
ECLI:EU:C:2020:275

Karta tad-Drittijiet Fundamentali tal-Unjoni Ewropea

  • CJEU Case C-830/18 / Judgment

    Key facts of the case:

    Reference for a preliminary ruling — Freedom of movement for workers — Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 — Children of frontier workers — Social advantages — System for reimbursement of school transport costs — Requirement of residence in a Land — Exclusion of children attending school in that Land and residing in a Member State other than that of the school attended — Exclusion of nationals residing in other Länder.

    Outcome of the case:

    On those grounds, the Court (Ninth Chamber) hereby rules:

    1. Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 492/2011 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 April 2011 on freedom of movement for workers within the Union must be interpreted as meaning that national legislation which makes the payment of school transport costs by a Land subject to a requirement of residence in the territory of that Land constitutes indirect discrimination, in that it is intrinsically liable to affect frontier workers more than national workers.
    2. Article 7(2) of Regulation No 492/2011 must be interpreted as meaning that practical difficulties linked to the effective organisation of school transport within a Land do not constitute an overriding reason in the public interest that is capable of justifying a national measure categorised as indirect discrimination.
  • Paragraphs referring to EU Charter

    16) If that national measure is nonetheless to be regarded as indirectly discriminatory, the referring court asks whether that national measure could be justified by an overriding reason in the public interest, in this case, the need to ensure the effective organisation of the school system. That legitimate objective relates to compulsory schooling, which is intended to guarantee the right to education enshrined both in Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10 December 1948, and in Article 14 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

    ...

    41) It follows that the objective mentioned by the referring court in the present case, that is to say, the effective organisation of the school system, in so far as it relates to the right to education guaranteed by Article 14 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights, may constitute a legitimate objective within the meaning of the case-law referred to in paragraph 39 of this judgment.