Logo law and pluralism
Logo Università Bicocca

Laurence Prinz v. Region Hannover and Philipp Seeberger v. Studentenwerk Heidelberg, Cases C‑523/11 and C‑585/11, CJUE (Third Chamber), 18 July 2013

Date
18/07/2013
Type Judgment
Case number C‑523/11, C‑585/11

Abstract

Refusal by the Member State to grant a subsidy for university education in another Member State due to the lack of the requirement of prolonged residence in its territory.

Normative references

20 TFEU
21 TFEU

Ruling


1. Although a Member State may legitimately grant training subsidies only to students who have demonstrated a certain degree of integration into the society of that State, the proof required by a Member State to be able to assert the existence of a real integration link should not be too exclusive, giving undue priority to an element that is not necessarily representative of the real and effective degree of connection between the applicant and the Member State itself, while any other representative element is excluded. Thus, if the existence of a certain level of integration can be considered proven once it is ascertained that the student has resided, for a certain period, in the Member State in which he is applying for the benefit of the training subsidy, the single residence requirement risks excluding students who, despite not having this requirement, nevertheless have sufficient connections with the society of that Member State, such as, for example, citizenship, family, employment, language skills or e other social or economic links.

2. Articles 20 TFEU and 21 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding the legislation of a Member State which makes the granting of a training grant for studies completed in another Member State subject to a single requirement requiring the applicant to have possessed stable residence, pursuant to this law, in the national territory for a period of not less than three years before the start of studies. Indeed, such a requirement is capable of dissuading nationals from exercising their freedom to move and reside in another Member State, taking into account the impact that the exercise of that freedom may have on the right to social security benefits training.

(Case relating to the Community legitimacy of the legislation of a Member State which makes the granting, for a period exceeding one year, of a training grant for studies completed in another Member State subject to a single requirement which requires the applicant to have stable residence, pursuant to this law, in the national territory for a period of not less than three years before the start of studies)