E.L. Rev. 2014, 39(1), 3-26 Page 1 E.L.Rev. 2014, 39(1), 3-26 · E.L.Rev. 2014, 39(1), 3-26 ... it merits a legal approach based on ... strong indication for a curricular concept

E.L.Rev. 2014, 39(1), 3-26

European Law Review

2014

The European dimension in citizenship education: unused potential of article 165 TFEU

KrisGrimonprezPhD Researcher ([email protected]).My gratitude goes to ECJ JudgesTimmermans, Levits and Lenaerts, as well as to Professors Hofmann and Gerkrath, University of

Luxembourg, for their useful comments.

© 2014 Sweet & Maxwell and its Contributors

Subject: European Union. Other Related Subject: Education

Keywords: Citizenship; Educational policy; EU law; Legal basis

Legislation cited: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union art.165

*3 Abstract

How to cope with fragmented learning about the European Union in schools?This article reacts to thewidespread idea that the European Union lacks relevant competence in the matter.While basic competencelies with the Member States, the European Union has the supporting competence to issue binding legislationto effectively promote the European dimension in citizenship education curricula by giving incentives, forinstance, to schools or learners.This competence is alex specialisto thelex generaliswhich requires fullrespect for Member States’ responsibility for content of teaching.After 20 years, the potential ofart.165TFEUis largely unused as to the substance (the European dimension evaporating into multilevel citizenshipeducation and into the international dimension) and as to the form (recommendations and flourishing openmethods of co-ordination).Article 165 TFEUprovides a sound legal basis for focused EU action (beyondmobility) to prepare the majority of pupils who remain at home for an active, informed, critical andresponsible EU citizenship, a prerequisite for democracy.

Introduction

This article proceeds in four steps.After introducing the theme of EU citizenship education in schools, thepotential of art.165 TFEU as a legal basis for EU incentive measures promoting the European dimension ineducation is examined.Two hurdles have to be cleared: the vagueness of the concept "European dimensionin education" and the limits to EU competence to promote this type of European dimension.This potential islargely unused, in substance and in form, which leads to suggestions for the future.

Jean Monnet is alleged to have said: "If I were to start again, I would start with education."1CommunicatingEurope is a complex but indeed crucial task.2SincePlato’s Republic, academics have confirmed a strongcorrelation between political education, and the legitimacy and stability of political systems.3Evidence inresearch supports the assumption that citizenship education has an impact on active*4 citizenship.4TheEuropean Parliament, the Council and the Commission also confirm the role of education in this respect.5InGroener, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) considered that "[t]eachers have an essential role to play" ina policy of cultural and linguistic diversity.6The Council of Europe is firmly convinced that education plays

E.L. Rev. 2014, 39(1), 3-26 Page 1

(Cite as: )

© 2014 Thomson Reuters.

a central role in promoting human rights, democracy and the rule of law.Education is increasingly seen as adefence mechanism against the rise of violence, discrimination or intolerance.7

Citizenship education takes place through formal, non-formal and informal learning.8I focus on formallearning, as it is the vital basis9for lifelong learning.10All cycles of formal learning are important (primary,secondary, and higher education), but within this range, the last years of compulsory school education mightbe particularly valuable:compulsory education11to reach the whole population and thelast yearsto reach thisgroup at its highest intellectual capacities providing chances for critical reflection.*5

A fair observation is that of fragmented learning about the European Union in schools.12Recognising theEuropean flag cannot be seen as a sufficient learning outcome.13The result of defaulting EU citizenshipeducation in schools risks establishing a vacant land where nationalistic one-liners against Europe easilystrike root:

"‘We will not be a colony.Hungarians won’t live according to the commands of foreign powers, they won’tgive up their independence or their freedom,’ Orban told over 100,000 people in Budapest."14

Educating and encouraging critical debate from school age onwards reduces the risks of populism.15

The Union has been successful in promoting mobility in education, which is very valuable indeed forEuropean citizenship and mutual understanding.16But facts are unmistakable: the majority of learners (morethan 90 per cent) remain at home.17They often have no links with other countries and are European citizensonly as a consequence of their country being a Member State of the European Union.18Especially for thismajority group, EU citizenship education is useful to tackle the EU civic deficit.For them, the curriculumquestion is crucial: what did they learn about Europe at school?

This leads to the following questions: what action can the European Union undertake (beyond mobility) topromote active, informed, and responsible EU citizenship in compulsory school education for those whoremain at home?What is the "European dimension in education" for which the European Union receivedsupporting competence, what are the limits to that competence, and how has the potential of that legal basisbeen used?*6

Concept of the "European dimension in education" in Article 165 TFEU

The European dimension in educationsensu strictoas a European dimension in school curricula

Often, the expression "European dimension in education" is usedsensu lato, referring to the overarching aimof the entire art.165 TFEU: contributing to the development of quality education (para.1), with the list ofspecific objectives (para.2) as the practical elaboration of this aim.19

The European dimension in educationsensu strictois the first of the specific objectives of Union action as itappears in art.165(2) first indent TFEU:

"[Union action shall be aimed at] developing the European dimension in education, particularly through theteaching and dissemination of the languages of the Member States."

As an educational principle, the "European dimension in education" has led to endless debates.20As a Treatyexpression, it merits a legal approach based on traditional interpretation methods.They point in the samedirection: the European dimension in education "as such"21aims primarily at insertion of "Europeancontent" into national school curricula.22"European content" includes languages and various themes oflearning about Europe.

E.L. Rev. 2014, 39(1), 3-26 Page 2

(Cite as: )


Textual interpretation

The wording "languages" and "particularly" in a separate indent (preceding the mobility indent) is a firststrong indication for a curricular concept of the European dimension in education. Language learning has atypical place in curricula of formal education.From the word "particularly" can be inferred that othercurricular action is possible as well.Frazier gives courses on European history as an example.23

Contextual and teleological interpretation

The interpretation maxim of coherence advocates a reading of every provision of Union law in a way that itdoes not contradict the normative context in which it fits and in line with the objectives pursued.*7 24

First, in light of the increasing importance of thetravaux préparatoiresin recent case law of the ECJ(PringleandInuit),25the objectives and actions envisaged in pre-Maastricht policy documents are to beexamined.These (public) documents show how the original European dimension in education conceptfocused on the curriculum.The 1973 Janne Report launched the European dimension in education.26Allproposed actions concerned the curriculum: learning about Europe; learning about other Member States inhistory and geography; language learning; and "Prudent and gradual teaching of European ‘civics’ to bebased mainly on Community practices and institutions, on pluralism and on democracy".The 1985 AdonninoReportA People’s Europe, wishing to give new impetus to a European dimension in education, proposed,inter alia, appropriate school books and teaching material, under the title "The European Image inEducation".27The Adonnino report, thus clarifying the objective of what is now art.165(2) TFEU, has thesame value as the Delors report on which the ECJ based its interpretation of art.125 TFEU inPringle.After1992, the curricular European dimension in education objective (apart from languages) silently moved fromcentre to backstage.Mobility now gets the focus as an expression of the "European dimension in education"sensu lato, referring to successful actions such as Erasmus. Yet, this may not make us forget thesensu strictomeaning and potential of the first indent Treaty concept.

Secondly, a curricular European dimension in education fits in harmoniously within the wider context of theinternal market.In its1985 White Paper "Completing the Internal Market",28the Commission proposed toincrease support for programmes "helping young people, in whose hands the future of the Community’seconomy lies, to think in European terms".Many initiatives on the European dimension in education aimedto raise European awareness through the curriculum (particularly in languages and geography).But after1992, as reported by Field, because the impact of the internal market turned out to be less dramatic thananticipated, short-term enthusiasm was often followed by a loss of interest.29Yet, free movement rulescontinue to presuppose citizens’ minimal understanding of, and confidence in, the system.30

Thirdly, to interpret the European dimension in educationsensu stricto, some foundational general principlesof Union law are relevant.The normative context for systemic interpretation includes the general*8principles of democracy, transparency and openness, access to documents and freedom of information.31Tobecome fully effective, these general principles presuppose a minimal EU citizenship education for thewhole population, not just for the mobile minority.

If the European Union were purely an intergovernmental bargain among Member State governments,democratic legitimacy would suffice with some mechanisms of formal control over the decision-makingprocess.But democracy as a constitutional principle on which the European Union is founded (TEU art.2,arts 10–12; Charter, Preamble and arts 39–40) has a much richer content.It requires citizens and theirrepresentatives to be involved in overlapping spheres of decision-making, participating in policy debates andarguments.32This understanding of EU democratic legitimacy implies as a prerequisite elementarycitizenship education for everyone.Representative, participatory and deliberative EU democracy all

E.L. Rev. 2014, 39(1), 3-26 Page 3

(Cite as: )


presuppose educated—informed and critically thinking—citizens.Within the context of growing ambitionsfor EU democracy (since 2009, a new Title has been included in the Treaty),33increased promotion of acurricular European dimension in education would be a natural corollary.34

Fourthly, the European Union "places the individual at the heart of its activities, by establishing thecitizenship of the Union …" (Charter Preamble).The fact, however, is that the average citizen in Europe isunaware of his/her "fundamental status".35The first objective of the European dimension in education in the1993 Green Paper was contributing to European citizenship, based on shared values of interdependence,democracy, equal opportunity and mutual respect.36But European citizenship implies an explainedcitizenship, based on education for all.

To conclude, the "European dimension in education" of art.165(2) first indent TFEU, read in harmony withthe overall logic of the system, is a European dimension in educationsensu stricto(a concept independent oflearner mobility) that essentially refers to European themes in the school curriculum, with EU citizenshipeducation at its centre.

EU citizenship education

In its Resolution of 2006 on initiatives to complement school curricula providing appropriate supportmeasures to include the European dimension, the European Parliament recognised,

"the two different aspects of the European dimension—firstly access to information about the EU: itsinstitutions, methods, practices, initiatives, and secondly knowledge of Europe’s shared history*9 andcultural heritage, the development of linguistic skills, and a grasp of European current events, all of whichmay supplement national curricula."37

EU citizenship education is broader than "civic education", limited to "knowledge and understanding offormal institutions and processes of civic life" (as voting in elections).38As Eurydice (an educationinformation network, with 40 participating national units co-ordinated by the EU Education, Audiovisualand Culture Executive Agency) reports, citizenship education is meant to guide pupils towards politicalliteracy, critical thinking, the development of certain attitudes and values, and active participation.39Citizenship education is thus commonly understood to include five aspects (knowledge, skills, attitudes,values and active participation),40all of which may be situated at the local, regional, national, European orinternational level.They are described under the rubric "civic key competences" by the European Parliamentand the Council in their 2006 Recommendation on key competences for lifelong learning, adopted inaccordance with the co-decision procedure (art.251 EC).41Eurydice and the Centre for Research on LifelongLearning (CRELL) developed these five aspects of citizenship education further.42

The European dimension in citizenship education curricula aims at citizenship education focusing on theEuropean level, in its interconnectedness with the (sub)national level.But what is the competence of theEuropean Union to promote this type of European dimension in education?43

Potential of Article 165 TFEU as legal basis to promote the "European dimension"

Principle of national educational autonomy

In the pre-Maastricht period, without express Treaty powers, a Community education policy developed"avant la lettre" towards a European dimension in educationsensu lato.This resulted from the exercise ofpowers conferred on the Community in other fields: an expected spill-over of the internal market,44asurprising link, at the time, with the principle of non-discrimination45and a far-reaching effect of vocational*10 training.46Some authors criticised the active role of the ECJ (leading to "competence creep").47The

E.L. Rev. 2014, 39(1), 3-26 Page 4

(Cite as: )


ECJ had in fact paved the way for education competences in the Treaty,48maybe especially for the need toput limits to such competences.

The 1992 Maastricht Treaty consolidated theacquis communautaireby introducing a legal basis forCommunity action in the field of education (art.126 EC, art.149 EC through the Amsterdam Treaty, nowart.165 TFEU).The Treaty preserved the paradigm of national educational autonomy, using careful languagefor authorising EU action ("the Union shall contribute", "by encouraging cooperation", "if necessary, bysupporting and supplementing"), and by limiting its scope ("while fully respecting").49An importantinnovation was that the European Union acquired competence for all types of education, including generaleducation in primary and secondary schools.50In the period after 1992, tensions between the EuropeanUnion and Member State levels persisted.51The Convention on the Future of Europe recommended thefollowing:

"Supporting measures apply to policy areas where the Member States have not transferred legislativecompetence to the Union, unless exceptionally and clearly specified in the relevant Treaty Article;[s]upporting measures allow the Union to assist and supplement national policies where this is in thecommon interest of the Union and the Member States."52

The Convention named education as one of the basic public policy choices and social values of a MemberState,53an essential element of national identity (cf. art.4(2) TEU).In federal states, education is mostlyreserved to the federated entities as part of their identity.54

Applying the principle of national educational autonomy to EU citizenship education, the basicresponsibility and competence for a curricular European dimension in education lies with the MemberStates.They decide if, how, and to what extent, young citizens learn about the European Union at school.TheUnion comes in the second instance to support, co-ordinate, or supplement.Yet, Member States do*11 notenjoy full discretion, since their competence, like any national competence, needs to be exercised incompliance with EU law.55

EU supporting competence in education

The general objective to "contribute to the development of quality education" (art.165(1) TFEU) can coverEU action to promote EU citizenship education in schools, i.e. quality education about the European Union.56The first specific objective towards quality education, the European dimension in educationsensu stricto(art.165(2) first indent TFEU) may serve in its own right as a legal basis for EU action to promote theEuropean dimension in citizenship education curricula.

The Convention Working Group considered that supporting measures authorise the Union to adopt"recommendations, resolutions, guidelines, programmes, and other legally non-binding acts as well aslegally binding decisions, to the extent specified" in the Treaty.57Measures relating to EU education policybased on art.165 TFEU are thus not all "soft law".58Some binding EU legislation has been adopted.Itssignificance for EU citizenship education will now be highlighted.

The European Union can exercise its supporting competence towards a European dimension in education intwo ways.First, incentive measures may be adopted by the European Parliament and the Council acting inaccordance with the ordinary legislative procedure (art.165(4) first indent TFEU), after consulting theEconomic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Educational incentive measures are thuslegislative acts (art.289 TFEU).Secondly, recommendations can be made by the Council (art.165(4) secondindent TFEU).59

Although the word "incentive" may give the opposite impression,60incentive measures are binding when

E.L. Rev. 2014, 39(1), 3-26 Page 5

(Cite as: )


issued in the form of a regulation or decision (art.288 TFEU).In the form of a recommendation they are notand their potential for the European dimension in education is weaker (although recommendations are notwithout any legal effect61). Recommendations as incentive measures based on art.165(4) first indent TFEUare to be distinguished from recommendations based on art.165(4) second indent, where neither theEuropean Parliament nor the Economic and Social Committee or the Committee of the Regions are involvedin their adoption.*12 62

So far, incentive measures have mostly taken the form of decisions63of the European Parliament and theCouncil establishing action programmes in education.Decision 819/95 established the Community actionprogramme Socratesfor the period 1995–1999, extended byDecision 253/2000for the period 2000–2006.64Decision 1720/2006 established an action programme in the field of lifelong learningfor the period2007–2013 (the2006 Lifelong Learning Decision).65On December 11, 2013, the programme for the period2014–2020 has been adopted in the form of a regulation, the 2013 Erasmus+ Regulation.66

What is the effect of educational incentive measures taken by the European Union?Because education is nota shared competence, there is no pre-emption.Member States keep their basic competence in education.Butthey have to exercise it in compliance with EU law containing incentive measures.Incentive measuresincreasingly include obligations for Member States, i.e. obligations of co-operation and even of action.67The mechanism of incentive measures is to provide an EU incentive if certain conditions are satisfied.Thecore question is whom the incentive is to benefit.If Member States are the beneficiaries of the incentive, theyhave no obligation.If EU incentives, such as funding or quality labels, are to benefit schools or learnersdirectly, Member States may be obliged, first, to adapt their legislation so that beneficiaries can satisfy theconditions and, secondly, to take all other necessary implementing measures.An example can be taken fromthe2006 Lifelong Learning Decision, which integrates the different sub-programmes Comenius (schooleducation), Erasmus (higher education), Leonardo da Vinci (non-tertiary vocational education, and training),Grundtvig (adult education), transversal programmes (such as language learning and ICT), and the JeanMonnet programme.The Erasmus programme is "aimed at" students, higher education institutions, teachers,etc.(art.20). For specified actions of mobility or co-operation (art.22), these beneficiaries get grants out ofEU funds through national agencies (art.19).Article 6(2)lays down, with an unambiguous "shall" and "must"vocabulary, eight obligations for the Member States.They shall take the necessary steps to ensure theefficient running of the Lifelong Learning Programme at national level; they shall establish nationalagencies to implement it; etc.Article15imposes the submission of reports on the implementation and theimpact of the Programme.68The 2013 Erasmus+ Regulation goes further in the same direction.The MemberStates shall take all appropriate measures to remove legal and administrative obstacles to the properfunctioning of the Programme; they shall, to act on their behalf, appoint national authorities, which in turnshall designate national agencies.All have obligations, listed in arts 27–28.69The Commission has the powerto take delegated and implementing acts (arts 33–36).*13

Incentive measures in the form of a regulation or decision have an important legal impact as they are bindingon all the organs of the Member State.70Owing to the principle of primacy of Union law, national courtsmust refrain from applying any national provision which would be likely to hinder their implementation.71Ifthe Commission considers that a Member State has failed to fulfil an obligation imposed by such incentivemeasures, it can bring the matter before the ECJ (art.258 TFEU).72

Applied to EU citizenship education in schools, the potential of art.165 TFEU clearly emerges.It provides alegal basis for the European Union to issue binding legislation to promote a curricular European dimensionin citizenship education.73Regulations or decisions can give incentives to schools and oblige Member Statesto adapt their legislation.But there are limits to this legal basis.

Treaty limits—"no content" and "no harmonisation"

E.L. Rev. 2014, 39(1), 3-26 Page 6

(Cite as: )


A double limit appears in the Treaty. First, art.165(1) TFEU secures three "no go" areas: the EuropeanUnion can only act "while fully respecting the responsibility of the Member States for the content ofteaching and the organisation of education systems and their cultural and linguistic diversity".Secondly,art.165(4) TFEU prohibits any harmonisation of the laws or regulations of the Member States by incentivemeasures (cf. art.2(5) TFEU).The Treaty excluding harmonisation in education, art.352 TFEU cannot beused as a legal basis for harmonised EU citizenship education either.

For EU action aiming to develop the European dimension in national school curricula, the hurdles "noharmonisation" and especially "no content" seem quite high to overcome.After 1992, there was "a markeddecline in the Commission’s eagerness to pursue its earlier curriculum-related ambitions".74

Limits put in perspective

Five reflections qualify the limits. First, the "European dimension" is to be seen as alex specialisto the "nocontent" limit.There seems to be a contradiction within art.165 TFEU between the first and the secondparagraphs.How can a blanket ban on content be reconciled with EU competence to promote "particularly"the teaching of languages?As explained, the Treaty article was drafted at a time when the Europeandimension in education primarily had a curricular meaning.The only reasonable solution to this apparentcontradiction is to differentiate between alex generalisand alex specialis.An interpretation that gives fulleffect to the provisions within their context is that competence for the European dimensionsensu strictois thelex specialisvis-à-vis thelex generaliswhich asks to fully respect Member States’ competence*14 for contentof teaching.This fits in well with the underlying philosophy and ratio of the "no go" area.Member Stateswish to keep their own identity through their (sub)national education system. Respect for diversity ofeducational systems is guaranteed (lex generalis), while at the same time, some education about the Unionof which Member States are part, is encouraged or co-ordinated (lex specialis).Unity in diversity.The onedoes not exclude the other.75

Secondly, within the2006 Lifelong Learning Decision, the Jean Monnet programme rightly ignores the "nocontent" limit with regard to learning on European integration (as an illustration of thelex specialiscompetence).The programme aims "to stimulate teaching, research and reflection activities in the field ofEuropean integration studies".76The "issues relating to European integration" which form the core of theJean Monnet programme (arts 34–37) are all expressions of the European dimension in educationsensustricto. The "teaching, research and reflection" on these issues are aspects of EU citizenship education asdescribed above (knowledge, skills, attitudes …).After a request of the European Parliament,77theCommission took the "Learning EU @ school" initiative on the legal basis of the Jean Monnet programme(key activity 1) of the2006 Lifelong Learning Decision,78inter alia "to develop content for EU teachers" or"pedagogical content" and didactic material for the teaching of European integration in schools.79Thissuccessful80(but limited) initiative deserves broader EU support.As an implementation of the Europeandimension in education of art.165(2) TFEU, some interference in national curricula is permitted.81Alsowithin the 2013 Erasmus+ Regulation, Jean Monnet activities aim to promote teaching and research onEuropean integration (art.10), ignoring the "no content" limit of art.165(1) TFEU.

From the Jean Monnet programme, albeit primarily aimed at higher education,82I deduce that art.165 TFEU(ex art.149 EC) can reasonably be seen as a sufficient legal basis for action.If the European Union has thecompetence to promote teaching, research, and reflection on European integration among specialistacademics, there is no reason to raise the "no content"—or "no harmonisation"—limits to oppose as a matterof principle EU competence to promote learning about European integration in schools.

Thirdly, Member States’ educational autonomy has to respect EU law.InMorgan and Bucher, the ECJconsidered,

E.L. Rev. 2014, 39(1), 3-26 Page 7

(Cite as: )


"although … the Member States are competent, under art.149(1) EC, as regards the content of teaching andthe organisation of their respective education systems, it is none the less the case that that competence mustbe exercised in compliance with Community law."83

In casu, compliance was expected with the Treaty provisions on the freedom to move and to reside withinthe territory of Member States.A.G. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer had considered that,*15

"responsibility for regulating study grants does not lie exclusively in the hands of the national legislatures,since the Community provisions impregnate it with their philosophy of integration.However, even if suchregulation fell within the scope of the national powers with regard to education, those powers must beexercised in accordance with Community law, safeguarding its fundamental principles, such as that offreedom of movement."84

By analogy, I would argue that responsibility for EU citizenship education does not lie exclusively in thehands of the national legislatures, since the Union provisions impregnate it with their philosophy ofintegration.Continuing the analogy, however, even if EU citizenship education fell within the scope of thenational powers with regard to education, those powers must be exercised in accordance with EU law,safeguarding its fundamental principles, such as democracy, a constitutional principle firmly anchored in EUlaw.85Debate is, of course, possible as to the conditions under which the general principle of democracygenerates subjective individual rights, such as the right to information, comparable to the freedom to moveand to reside at issue in theMorgan and Buchercase.86Even if the democracy principle is "only" structural orsystemic,87it has underlying relevance colouring the "full" responsibility of the Member States for thecontent of teaching about the European Union.The chain of legitimation from those governed to thosetemporarily governing, which the principle of democracy implies, is constituted by certain minimumelements on the legislative, executive and administrative levels.88This chain starts at Member State levelwith basic citizenship education in schools.Minimal learning about the European Union by all pupils (thus incompulsory education) is necessary to give them some insight in the system in which they live (the wholepicture: their Member State, participating in the European Union).Therefore, minimal EU learning belongsto the "conditions which will ensure the free expression of the opinion of the people" when Member Statesfulfil their obligation to hold free elections (art.3 of the First Protocol to the ECHR).It is a prerequisite bothfor European Parliament elections and for national level elections (given the dual chain of democraticlegitimation of the European Union89). Besides, a curricular European dimension in education gives "effetutile" to the right to vote at elections to the European Parliament foreverycitizen of the Union (art.20 TFEUand art.39 Charter), also for those who remain at home.Fulfilment of the democracy principle is indeed notto be made in some abstract sense, but rather in "meeting the demands of the principle in an ongoing andprocess-related manner".90Democracy as a pervasive founding value of the European Union (art.2 TEU)presupposes that the EU civic gap be bridged.EU promotion of the European dimension in citizenshipeducation in Member States should in this context not be seen as inadmissible interference in content ofteaching.

A fourth reflection putting the "no content" and "no harmonisation" limits of art.165 TFEU in perspective isthat, increasingly, EU education policy affects curricula and has converging effects.91The1989 Lingua*16Decision92had been strongly opposed by the United Kingdom.It claimed that language teaching insecondary school had nothing to do with the powers of the Community and confinedLinguato post-compulsory education.93After the 1992 Maastricht Treaty provided a new legal basis in art.126 EC, theEuropean Parliament and the Council integrated the controversial Lingua programme into the1995 SocratesDecisionand added a Chapter Comenius for schools.94To "develop the European dimension in education atall levels so as to strengthen the spirit of European citizenship" and to improve the knowledge of languages,they encouraged, inter alia, school partnerships developing "subjects of European interest".95The2000Socrates Decision96supported, inter alia, action to build up "knowledge, skills and competences likely to

E.L. Rev. 2014, 39(1), 3-26 Page 8

(Cite as: )


foster active citizenship and employability",97also awarding financial assistance for "the development ofcurricula, courses, modules or teaching material in the context of reinforcing the European dimension ofschool education".98The2006 Lifelong Learning Decisionthrows a realistic light on the Treaty limits.TheErasmus programme (encouraging mobility)99inevitably brought changes in study curricula andorganisation of higher education, "causing ‘convergence’, if not ‘harmonization’".100Within the overallobjectives of the Decision and specifically of the Comenius programme, reference is made to developing asense of European citizenship, skills for active citizenship, knowledge, and understanding of diversity ofEuropean cultures, and of values as human rights, democracy, and tolerance101(undoubtedly aspects of EUcitizenship education), confirming the potential of the legal basis.102Key activities in the transversalprogramme support "developing new language learning materials" and courses103and "innovative ICT-based content".104Also in the2008 Erasmus Mundus Decisionand in the 2013 Erasmus+ Regulation, theEuropean Parliament and the Council support curriculum development.*17 105

Non-binding EU documents on education reflect the same philosophy.In several recommendations "learningplans" and elements of the European dimension in education (e.g. intercultural awareness) appear aspreparation for learning mobility and are suggested to be integrated into the curriculum.106Since the 2000Lisbon Conclusions of the European Council, education and training are considered as essential prioritiesaiming at an advanced knowledge-based economy, key for growth.EU institutions call for a modernisationof curricula to achieve the headline targets in education.107

Finally, a fifth reflection is that the new approach based on learning outcomes and educational"competences" can be viewed as compatible with the "no content" and "no harmonisation" limits of theTreaty.The paradigm has shifted from inputs with a static conception of curricular content towardsdynamically reached learning outcomes and "competences", defined as "a combination of knowledge, skillsand attitudes appropriate to the context".108In their 2006 Recommendation, Parliament and Councilrecommend that Member States develop key competences as part of their lifelong learning strategies, i.e.competences "which all individuals need for personal fulfilment and development, active citizenship, socialinclusion and employment".Eight key competences are set out, such as communication in the mother tongueand in foreign languages, mathematical and basic competences in science and technology, and social andcivic competences.109A 2008 Recommendation asks Member States to use the European QualificationsFramework as a reference tool and to develop related National Qualifications Frameworks,110equallyfocusing on learning outcomes rather than on traditional teaching input (content).

Although neither "curriculum" nor "content" is mentioned in the 2006 Recommendation, the competencesapproach has in practice a significant impact on curricula.111Key competences are expressed in indicatorsand benchmarks, where pressure of publicity and comparison of Member States’ performances may also*18have convergent effects.112But I agree with Lonbay that the creation of "convergence through commonlyaccepted outcomes is not at all the same as creating a rigid, Europe-wide curriculum".113Recommendedlearning outcomes are not to be seen as forbidden "content of teaching", or as "harmonisation", insofar astheir implementation and the ways to reach them are left to educational freedom of the Member States.Theirrather abstract or general formulation allows for differences in precise content of teaching as Member Statesintegrate them into the richness of national educational systems and cultures.

To conclude, against the background of the foregoing five reflections, the Treaty limits to the EU supportingcompetences in education are no rigid, absolute barriers, but have to be seen in context. Applied to EUcitizenship education and curriculum development in schools for those who remain at home, the potential ofart.165 TFEU as a legal basis can survive the test.

Subsidiarity

E.L. Rev. 2014, 39(1), 3-26 Page 9

(Cite as: )


The use of the supporting competences conferred on the European Union in the field of education mustcomply with the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality (art.5 TEU).114

Can the objective of quality education, in particular towards the European dimension in education, not besufficiently achieved by the Member States?Ertl and Phillips observe that, especially in the field ofeducation, support for the principle of subsidiarity "indicates that national and regional actors have beenincreasingly cautious in surrendering power to supranational bodies".115According to Hingel, education is"an ideal-type of a policy area for subsidiarity to play its full role", the most optimal level of decision-making being the (sub)national one "where initiatives can be taken that are fully integrated while thenationally specific institutional set-ups as well as the historical and cultural heritage are respected".116ForLenaerts in 1994, Member States’ responsibility for content of teaching, organisation of education systemsand cultural and linguistic identity "boils down to the introduction of an irrebuttable presumption that theyare better placed to deal with these policy matters".He sees Community educational action confined toaspects "which are manifestly cross-border and for which it would be difficult for each Member State to actefficiently on an individual basis".117I think that subsidiarity should remain a dynamic concept, allowingfor Union co-operation to develop while adapting to new needs and expectations.118In a Europe facingeconomic crisis and a civic deficit, the best level to reach objectives is to be openly searched for without apriori presumptions.

Which criteria are used to decide on the existence of added value for education policy at Union level?119Itis clear that the objective of the 2013 Regulation, to establish the Erasmus+ Programme, cannot sufficientlybe achieved by the Member States (Recital 49).In general, added value can be derived from*19 thecontribution to the achievement of general objectives of the Programme (art.3,1), among which thepromotion of European values in accordance with art.2 TEU (art.4(f)).120This criterion can surely be met byEU action promoting the European dimension in citizenship education.

In particular, the 2013 Erasmus+ Regulation sees the European added value of actions and activities firstlyensured through their "transnational character, particularly with regard to mobility and cooperation aimed atachieving a sustainable systemic impact" (art.3, 2(a)).121Applied to measures promoting the curricularEuropean dimension in education, action can be argued to have by definition a transnational character (evenaction within one Member State), the cross-border element being inherent in the "European" dimension ineducation.122That the cross-border element is inherent in learning about Europe and therefore EU actiondoes not need the traditional cross-border aspect (mobility or transnational co-ordination) can be deducedfrom the scope of the Jean Monnet programme.In the 2006 Lifelong Learning Decision, all sub-programmessupport actions of mobility and bilateral or multilateral partnerships or projects.123The Jean Monnetprogramme is the only sub-programme which also grants support to "unilateral and national projects", suchas "Jean Monnet Chairs, centres of excellence and teaching modules" or "information and researchactivities".124The same idea is present in the 2013 Erasmus+ Regulation, where Jean Monnet activities arementioned in a separate paragraph, distinguished from cross-border actions as learning mobility and trans-or international co-operation for innovation and exchange of good practices (art.6, juncto art.2).In order tohave a long-term systemic impact, the cross-border element inherent in the content of learning can arguablybe better co-ordinated at EU level.125.

Two other criteria for particular added value of EU action in education, according to the 2013 Erasmus+Regulation, are complementarity and synergy with other programmes and policies at national, Union andinternational level,126and contribution to the effective use of Union transparency and recognition tools.127

What is crucial in this respect is the objective of a common reference point, encouraging and facilitatingnational reforms and co-operation.128In the 2006 Recommendation on key competences, the EuropeanParliament and the Council consider that this objective cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member

E.L. Rev. 2014, 39(1), 3-26 Page 10

(Cite as: )


States acting alone and can therefore be better achieved at Community level.129This considerationdefinitely applies to EU citizenship education where a common reference point is absolutely necessary, asMember*20 States’ contributions to the European dimension are "piecemeal and fragmented".130TheExplanatory Statement before the 2006 Resolution on initiatives to complement school curricula indicates:

"Whilst some countries have supplied numerous illustrations and explanations, others have barely touchedupon the subject of the European dimension in their education system."131

As shown in research, the objective of quality, in particular towards the European dimension in educationsensu stricto, seems not sufficiently achieved by Member States acting alone and can be better reached atUnion level.I conclude that there is no subsidiarity obstacle for the European Union to draw the headlines ofa European dimension in citizenship education.

Complying with the principle of proportionality, EU measures should be appropriate and not go beyondwhat is necessary to reach the objective.132

The unused potential of the "European dimension"

In the 1992 Maastricht Treaty, EU citizenship and the "European dimension in education" were introducedin the same movement.As is well known, the impact of EU citizenship is consolidating through the case lawof the ECJ.133But the European dimension in educationsensu strictoseems far behind.The unused potentialof art.165(2) first indent TFEU results from a double tension that runs through decades of EU educationpolicy, national versus European and economic versus social.For some, the education curriculum is thevehicle to create a European identity,134for others, the ultimate defence of (sub)national identities, an areain which the Union should not interfere.135Furthermore, economic forces and globalisation risk blowingdown the European dimension in educationsensu stricto.*21

As a legal basis for future Union action, art.165(2) first indent TFEU has an unused potential in substanceand in form.

As to the substance

The European dimension in educationsensu strictois definitely present in the rhetoric,136but at the stage ofoperationalisation, EU action focuses on mobility.137Symptomatic in this respect is that the Commissionproposed to bring all education matters for the period 2014–2020 together into a single programme called"Erasmus for All" because of the widespread recognition of the Erasmus brand name as synonym of Unionlearner mobility.138

Furthermore, the European dimension in educationsensu strictoseems to be at risk, as it is evaporating intoan undifferentiated approach to multilevel citizenship education.This approach tends to mention learningoutcomes (knowledge, skills, attitudes, values and active participation) without distinction as to thelevel.The 2006 Recommendation on key competences enumerates for civic key competences in one breath"local, regional, national, European and international levels", levels on which for example knowledge ofconcepts such as democracy or skills of critical reflection are expected.Equally expected is displaying "asense of belonging to one’s locality, country, the EU and Europe in general and to the world".139This trendof undifferentiated multilevel citizenship education is continued in indicators measuring progress towardsobjectives.Analysing the Active Citizenship Composite Indicator (ACCI) and the Civic CompetenceComposite Indicator (CCCI), the European dimension is not distinctly present.Active citizenship is definedas "[p]articipation in civil society, community and/or political life, characterised by mutual respect and non-violence and in accordance with human rights and democracy",140with activities "on local, regional,national, European and international levels".141In the ACCI only one of the 63 basic indicators explicitly

E.L. Rev. 2014, 39(1), 3-26 Page 11

(Cite as: )


concerns the EU level (voting for the European Parliament).142Levels are equally mixed up in indicatorslike "Immigrants should have same rights" (third countries and EU Member States?).143A specificEuropean dimension in education could be clearer.The Commission complained about a delivery gaptowards goals set.144For the European dimension in citizenship education, there is not even a delivery gapbetween commitments and action—there simply is a commitment gap.*22

What at first sight looks acceptable (to multilevel governance corresponds multilevel citizenship and,logically, multilevel education)145is seen from the perspective of the EU civic deficit a step backwards.TheEuropean Union in its uniqueness may be quite young and fragile for an undifferentiated approach.TheEuropean level of citizenship education is under pressure from the national level below and the internationallevel above.

From below, the stability of 19th-century nation states and established patterns may explain why someMember States, or their schools, have a tendency to forget the European dimension in education.An uneasyfeeling arises when observing that some Member States’ books on citizenship education hardly mention theEuropean Union at all.146Keating observes: "Thus far, evidence suggests that the Member States of Europehave been slow to abandon their commitment to promoting national citizenship."147

Also from above, the European dimension in education is at risk, diluted in a global perspective.Severalobservations point to the same phenomenon: internationalisation supplants the European dimension ineducation.For years, Member States were asked to report on their implementation of the Europeandimension in education in Ch.11 of the Eurydice Database, facilitating a comparative study.148In the newEurydice productEurypedia, this chapter is unfortunately substituted by the topic "Mobility andInternationalisation".149Documents on multilingualism highlight the "external dimension", not theEuropean dimension (notwithstanding the words "particularly through" in the Treaty’s European dimensionin education).150The 2013 Erasmus+ Regulation makes no reference to the European dimension, but aims to"enhance the international dimension of education".151In its Opinion, the Committee of the Regions rightlystresses the major challenge that "the programme should strengthen EU citizenship by emphasising theEuropean dimension".152

In the context of present tendencies, i.e. the focus on mobility, undifferentiated multilevel citizenshipeducation and internationalisation, the potential of art.165(2) first indent TFEU as to the substance is that itprovides a sound legal basis for the European Union to encourage citizenship education with emphasis onthe EU level (in its interconnectedness with the national level).EU action could define specific "EU civickey competences" as learning outcomes, while respecting Member States’ responsibility for precise content,leaving freedom as to educational activities, choice of textbooks and methods, grouping of pupils, curricularor cross-curricular courses, distribution of annual taught time between subjects, methods of assessment, etc.*23

It could further provide for a common EU citizenship education database for schools, to which learningoutcomes are linked.153As to the content of such a database, "the EU of the Treaties", binding on allMember States, provides guidance.154Its values and objectives expressed in arts 2 and 3 TEU constitutecurricular learning outcomes, referring to "what Europe is about" in a non-partisan, apolitical way.155Alsothe principles of conferral, subsidiarity, proportionality, and—undoubtedly the cornerstone of the EuropeanUnion—the principle of equality, in particular non-discrimination on grounds of nationality,156belong to thehard core.They should be no more difficult than mathematics or the principle of photosynthesis inbiology.Pupils in the last years of compulsory education are capable of critical reflection on such themes assolidarity, often referred to in the Treaties,157or on the principle of sincere co-operation, respect fornational identities or mutual trust/recognition.158This EU citizenship education will strengthen transversalskills159and lead to an open state of mind,160not a mere memorising of institutional matters, but reaching

E.L. Rev. 2014, 39(1), 3-26 Page 12

(Cite as: )


into deeper layers of EU attitudes and values, preparing for active EU citizenship.Translated into all officiallanguages of the European Union, such a database leaves the necessary room to adjust to national contexts(thus avoiding harmonisation).161Obviously, EU competence to promote the European dimension incitizenship education may not be used for Euro-propaganda.Rather, it aims to support the development oftools to educate for informed and critical national/EU citizens.162A common EU citizenship educationdatabase can be encouraged by the European Union, but independently set up by (higher) educationinstitutions or projects under the Jean Monnet programme.

Article 165(2) first indent TFEU has also the potential to establish (in a lifelong learning perspective) atransversal sub-programme "EU citizenship education for all", combining and widening existingprogrammes like Jean Monnet and Comenius (arts 34–36).The programme would specifically aim to*24encourage the curricular European dimension in citizenship education and be targeted at learners (mobile ornot), teachers, schools, institutions, organisations, or centres providing learning opportunities about theEuropean Union at all levels of formal education.Non-financial incentives such as EU quality labels couldguarantee an adequate European dimension in education (focusing on learning outcomes of EU civiccompetences, including the mastering of several languages).

Upstream, art.165(2) first indent TFEU can help to seriously develop the European dimension in teachereducation (a prerequisite for the European dimension in school education)."EU school teachers" could betrained at Jean Monnet higher education institutions (teacher training with a label of EU excellency).163

As to the form

Education governance is to a large extent based on (non-binding) recommendations, open methods of co-ordination (OMC), intergovernmental methods, or mixed formulae.Authors criticise recommendations, forinstance on teacher education, as rhetorical gestures with very little effect in practice.164Experts developingcomposite indicators warn that these tools have "pros" but also important "cons": their theoreticalunderpinning is often very underdeveloped; they "may be incapable of reflecting the complexity ofperformance and policies"; they are "simplistic presentations and comparisons of performance in given areasto be used as starting points for further analysis".165Yet, the education field is increasingly dominated bythese indicators.166

The potential of art.165 TFEU as to the form is that on its legal basis, the Parliament and the Council canissue binding incentive measures, legislative acts (under the ordinary legislative procedure) in dialogue withthe Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions to promote a curricular Europeandimension in citizenship education.The European Parliament recalled that "so-called soft law cannot be asubstitute for legal acts and instruments, which are available to ensure the continuity of the legislativeprocess, especially in the field of culture and education"; and,*25

"where the Community has legislative competence but there seems to be a lack of political will to introducelegislation, the use of soft law is liable to circumvent the properly competent legislative bodies, may floutthe principles of democracy and the rule of law under art.6 of the EU Treaty".167

Also, the Commission asks not to use the OMC "when legislative action under the Community method ispossible".168

An "EU citizenship education for all" programme could be issued in the form of a regulation or decision,imposing obligations on Member States to allow for effectiveness and implementation of incentives.Also adirective is conceivable, binding as to results to be achieved, leaving educational autonomy of the MemberStates to adjust to national circumstances, respecting national identities.

E.L. Rev. 2014, 39(1), 3-26 Page 13

(Cite as: )


A better use of art.165(2) first indent TFEU would at least provide for more precise reporting and measuringof EU learning at school, even if this is difficult.It must be admitted that the European dimension ineducation belongs to actions "whose impact is either difficult to gauge or can only be quantified over thelong term".169But even so, operationalisation and monitoring are possible.Given the importance of the EUcivic deficit, would the European dimension in citizenship education not deserve its own compositeindicator (the EDECI: European Dimension in Education Composite Indicator)?This dimension can beanalysed as complex issue, summarising a number of underlying individual variables.170For the CivicCompetence Composite Indicator (CCCI), CRELL established a list of knowledge, skills, attitudes andvalues, also useful to aid curriculum development on civic competence in schools.171Inadequate for theEuropean dimension, it could be worked out further (as an EU CCCI).

Facing the economic crisis, EU objectives in education are pursued with targeted action, comprehensivestrategies, due dates, and periodic reporting on progress.172These tools and endeavours are conceivablewith regard to the EU civic gap as well.According to some economists, the biggest danger for the survival ofthe eurozone does not come from the financial markets, but from the population.173Hence, not onlydemocracy, but also economic crisis management needs the support of educated young citizens towards*26added value at EU level.174I suggest that in "Rethinking education"175a European dimension narrativeshould be included.176

Conclusion

How to cope with fragmented learning about the European Union in schools?While basic competence forlearning about the European Union lies with the Member States, the Union has the supporting competence toissue binding incentive measures (such as regulations or decisions, imposing obligations), legislative actspromoting an effective curricular European dimension in citizenship education.This competence is alexspecialisto thelex generaliswhich asks to fully respect Member States’ responsibility for content of teaching(cf. the Jean Monnet programme).After 20 years in the Treaty, the potential of art.165 TFEU to encourageEU learning in schools is largely unused as to the substance (the European dimension evaporating intomultilevel citizenship education and into the international dimension) and as to the form (recommendationsand flourishing open methods of co-ordination).Article 165 TFEU is a sound legal basis for better-focusedEU action (beyond mobility) to prepare the majority of pupils who remain at home for an active, informed,critical and responsible EU citizenship.More can be done.

KrisGrimonprez

University of Luxembourg

1. "He probably never did, but it is an aphorism which makes sense, wherever it comes from":A. Corbett,Universities and the Europe of Knowledge: Ideas, Institutions and Policy Entrepreneurship in EuropeanUnion Higher Education Policy (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), p.xi.2. See Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee, Reconciling the national and Europeandimensions of communicating Europe [2009] OJ C27/152.3. H. Walkenhorst, "Problems of Political Education in a Multi-level Polity: Explaining Non-teaching ofEuropean Union Issues in German Secondary Schooling" (2006) 14 Journal of Contemporary EuropeanStudies 353; S. Philippou, A. Keating, and D. Hinderliter, "Citizenship Education Curricula: Comparing theMultiple Meanings of Supra-national Citizenship in Europe and Beyond" (2009) 41 Journal of CurriculumStudies 291, 297.4. Participatory Citizenship in the European Union(Institute of Education, University of London,commissioned by the European Commission, Europe for Citizens Programme, 2012), see e.g. Report 2, p.75;

E.L. Rev. 2014, 39(1), 3-26 Page 14

(Cite as: )


B. Hoskins, B. d’Hombres, and J. Campbell, "Does Formal Education Have an Impact on Active CitizenshipBehaviour?"(2008) 7 European Educational Research Journal 386;D. Kerr, "Western Europe RegionalSynthesis" in All-European Study on Education for Democratic Citizenship Policies (Strasbourg: Council ofEurope Publishing, 2004), p.73.See alsoM. Nussbaum, Not For Profit: Why Democracy Needs theHumanities (Woodstock: Princeton University Press, 2010), Ch.II.5. European Parliament Resolution on initiatives to complement school curricula providing appropriatesupport measures to include the European dimension [2006] OJ C306E/100;Decision 1093/2012 on theEuropean Year of Citizens (2013) [2012] OJ L325/1, Recital 19; Recommendation on key competences forlifelong learning [2006] OJ L394/10, Recital 6;White Paper on education and training, Teaching andLearning—Towards the Learning Society COM(95)590 final.6. Groener v Minister for Education (379/87) [1989] E.C.R. 3967; [1990] 1 C.M.L.R. 401at [20].The USSupreme Court also mentioned the importance of education:Pierce v Society of Sisters 268 U.S. 510 (1925).7. Council of Europe Charter on Education for Democratic Citizenship and Human Rights Education,Recommendation CM/Rec (2010)7, p.35.8. Formal learning is structured, intentional, provided by an education institution, and leads to certification;non-formal learning is structured, intentional, but without an educational institution or certification;informal learning results from daily activities as work, family or leisure (see e.g.M. de Weerd et al.,Indicators for Monitoring Active Citizenship and Citizenship Education (Amsterdam: Regioplan,2005).p.179). See also Council Recommendation on the validation of non-formal and informal learning[2012] OJ C398/1.9. J.Delors, "Education: the Necessary Utopia" in Learning: the Treasure Within, Report to Unesco of theInternational Commission on Education for the Twenty-first Century (Paris: Unesco Publishing, 1996).10. SeeDecision 1720/2006 establishing an action programme in the field of lifelong learning [2006] OJL327/45 art.2.In youth policy, the emphasis falls on informal or non-formal education (e.g.Decision1719/2006 establishing the Youth in Action programme for the period 2007 to 2013 [2006] OJ L327/30).Itsaction, e.g. Youth for Europe, is complementary to basic learning in schools.11. Usually until the end of lower secondary education (14–15 years), but now being extended in almost alleducation systems.Of 17-year-old Europeans, 90% are still in education.SeeEurydice, Eurostat, Key Data onEducation in Europe 2012,http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/education/eurydice/documents/key_data_series/134EN.pdf[Accessed December11, 2013]."School" definition inLifelong Learning Decision 1720/2006 art.2.12. There are wide variations from country to country (see Resolution on initiatives to complement schoolcurricula [2006] OJ C306E/100, Recital G, and debates); and a gap between policy intentions and effectivepractice:Dutch Ministry of Education, Culture and Science, Citizenship—Made in Europe: Living TogetherStarts at School (2004), p.66,http://edepot.wur.nl/117464. See the2009 International Civic and CitizenshipEducation Study (ICCS),http://www.iea.nl/[Both accessed December 11, 2013];D. Kerr, L. Sturman et al.,ICCS 2009 European Report: Civic Knowledge, Attitudes, and Engagement among Lower-secondaryStudents in 24 European Countries (Amsterdam: IEA, 2010);Eurydice, Citizenship Education in Europe(2012);European Parliament, The European Dimension in Secondary Education in Europe.A ComparativeStudy of the Place Occupied by the European Union in the Secondary Education Curriculum in the MemberStates and in the Candidate Countries (EDUC 11-2003).13. SeeCommission Staff Working Document, "Progress towards the Common European Objectives inEducation and Training: Indicators and Benchmarks (2010/2011)", pp.105–109.14. "Hungarian PM to EU: ‘We won’t be a Colony’",http://euobserver.com/843/115613[Accessed December11, 2013].15. See e.g.H.-G. Jaschke, "Zur Rolle der Schule bei der Bekämpfung von Rechtsextremismus",http://www.bpb.de/apuz/133384/zur-rolle-der-schule-bei-der-bekaempfung-von-rechtsextremismus[Accessed December 11, 2013].16. See, inter alia, Recommendation on transnational mobility within the Community for education and

E.L. Rev. 2014, 39(1), 3-26 Page 15

(Cite as: )


training purposes: European Quality Charter for Mobility [2006] OJ L394/5.17. Around 10% of students (higher education) studies abroad.In secondary education, where most youngpeople finish education, mobility action is even more limited.SeeEuropean Commission, "ErasmusProgramme in 2011–12: the Figures Explained",http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13-647_en.htm[Accessed December 11, 2013].The observationof Shaw in 1992 is still valid: "The fate of those who remain at home, and the organizations in which theywork, will be crucial for the future prosperity of Europe" (J. Shaw, "Education and the Law in the EuropeanCommunity" (1992) 21 Journal of Law & Education 415, 442).18. SeeSpecial Eurobarometer, "New Europeans",http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_346_en.pdf[Accessed December 11, 2013].19. H. Ertl, "European Union Policies in Education and Training: the Lisbon Agenda as a TurningPoint?"(2006) 42 Comparative Education 5, 8.20. "Orwellian Newspeak": R. Lane, "New Community Competences under the Maastricht Treaty" (1993)30 C.M.L. Rev. 939, 951.See D. Mulcahy, "In Search of the European Dimension in Education" (1991) 14European Journal of Teacher Education 213; R. Ryba, "Unity in Diversity: The Enigma of the EuropeanDimension in Education" (1995) 21 Oxford Review of Education 25; D. Barthélemy, "Analysis of theConcept of European Dimension" (1999) 31 European Education 64; A. Keating, D. Hinderliter Ortloff, andS. Philippou, "Citizenship Education Curricula: the Changes and Challenges Presented by Global andEuropean Integration" (2009) Journal of Curriculum Studies 145, 151.21. Expression used inCommission Report on the implementation of the Socrates programme 1995–1999COM(2001)75 final.22. Curriculum: any official steering document (national or central-level) containing programmes of study,or learning content, learning objectives, attainment targets, guidelines on pupil assessment or syllabuses (Eurydice, Citizenship Education in Europe (2012), p.17).23. C.Frazier, L’éducation et la Communauté Européenne (Paris: CNRS, 1995), pp.259, 261. See alsoL.Pépin, The History of European Cooperation in Education and Training: Europe in the Making—anExample (European Commission, 2006), p.148.24. K.Lenaerts and J. Gutiérrez-Fons, "To Say What the Law of the EU Is: Methods of Interpretation andthe European Court of Justice" (2014) 20 Columbia Journal of European Law (forthcoming).25. Thomas Pringle v Governement of Ireland, Ireland and The Attorney General (C-370/12) November 27,2012at [135]–[136];Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami v European Parliament and Council of the European Union(C-583/11P) October 3, 2013at [59], [66] and [70].26. H.Janne, For a Community Policy on Education: Report for the European Commission (1973) Bull EC,Supplement 10/73, p.52.The four first objectives of art.165(2) TFEU can be traced back to this report.27. Adonnino Committee, A People’s Europe (1985) 7 Bull EC, e.g. at p.24.See also Keating, HinderliterOrtloff and Philippou,"Citizenship Education Curricula" (2009) Journal of Curriculum Studies 145; R.Ryba, "Toward a European Dimension in Education: Intention and Reality in European Community Policyand Practice"(1992) 36 Comparative Education Review 15, 24.For later action, seeCommission StaffWorking Paper, "First progress report on action undertaken by the Member States and by the EuropeanCommunity with a view to strengthening the European dimension in education" SEC(91)1753 final;Conclusions of the Council and of the Ministers of Education meeting within the Council on measures fordeveloping the European dimension in higher education [1992] OJ C336/4(see Annex, point 3 aboutEuropean content); J. Lonbay, "Education and Law: the Community Context" (1989) 14 E.L. Rev. 363; T.Theiler, "The European Union and the ‘European Dimension’ in Schools: Theory and evidence" (1999) 21Journal of European Integration 307, 323;Pépin, The History of European Cooperation in Education andTraining (2006), p.293.28. White Paper, "Completing the Internal Market" COM(85)310, p.26.29. J.Field, European Dimensions, Education, Training and the European Union (London: Jessica Kingsley,1998), pp.103–104.

E.L. Rev. 2014, 39(1), 3-26 Page 16

(Cite as: )


30. A. Verhoeven, "Redactionele Signalen" (2012) 60 SEW 269.For many citizens and (small) companies,the internal market is in practice still far from achieved, not because rules are lacking, but because they areinsufficiently known or trusted.31. TEU arts 1, 10(1) and 11(2); TFEU arts 1 and 15; Charter art.42. SeeSvenska Journalistförbundet vCouncil (T-174/95) [1998] E.C.R. II-2289; [1998] 3 C.M.L.R. 645at [45]–[46];Sweden v Commission andMyTravel Group (C-506/08 P) [2011] 5 C.M.L.R. 18at [72]–[73];Sweden and Turco v Council (C-39/05 Pand C-52/05 P) [2007] E.C.R. I-4723; [2008] 3 C.M.L.R. 17at [34].32. D. Halberstam, "The Bride of Messina: Constitutionalism and Democracy in Europe" (2005) 30 E.L.Rev. 775; K. Lenaerts, "The Principle of Democracy in the Case-law of the European Court of Justice"(2013) 62 International & Comparative Law Quarterly 271.See examples of participation deficits in L.Pépin, "Education in the Lisbon Strategy: Assessment and Prospects" (2011) 46 European Journal ofEducation 25, 32.33. SeeH. Hofmann, G. Rowe and A. Türk, Administrative Law and Policy of the European Union (Oxford:Oxford University Press, 2011), pp.145, 148: in "view of its explicit inclusion in Articles 10–12 TEU, therelevance of the democracy principle might again become a central notion in various contexts" (concerninglegal bases).34. In line withJ. Habermas, Zur Verfassung Europas: Ein Essay (Berlin: Suhrkamp, 2011), p.57(die dritteKomponente).35. Grzelczyk v Centre Public d’Aide Sociale d’Ottignies Louvain la Neuve (C-184/99) [2001] E.C.R. I-6193; [2002] 1 C.M.L.R. 19at [31].See alsoDirective 2004/38 on the right of citizens of the Union and theirfamily members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States [2004] OJ L158/77,Recital 3.36. "Green Paper on the European Dimension of Education" COM(93)457 final, at para.13.37. Resolution on initiatives to complement school curricula [2006] OJ C306E/100, point 4. See alsoCommission, "Investing efficiently in education and training: an imperative for Europe" COM(2002) 779final, pp.21–22, for a curricular European dimension in education.38. Eurydice, Citizenship Education in Europe (2012), p.22(definition of the International Association forthe Evaluation of Educational Achievement, IEA).39. Eurydice, Citizenship Education at School in Europe (2005), p.10.40. E.g.Eurydice, Citizenship Education in Europe (2012), p.97.41. Recommendation on key competences for lifelong learning [2006] OJ L394/10, Annex 6B.42. Seehttp://crell.jrc.ec.europa.eu/[Accessed December 11, 2013].See the detailed list that can be used toaid curriculum development on civic competence in JRC,CRELL Scientific and Technical Reports: B.Hoskins, E. Villalba et al., Measuring Civic Competence in Europe.A composite Indicator based on IEACivic Education Study 1999 for 14 years old in School (2008), pp.21–22. Examples ofKnowledge: keyelements of the political and legal system;Skills: to distinguish a statement of fact from an opinion;Attitudes:to trust in and have loyalty towards democratic principles and institutions;Values: acceptance of the rule oflaw, tolerance;Intended behaviour: to be active in the community. See alsoB. Hoskins and R. Deakin Crick,Learning to Learn and Civic Competences: different currencies or two sides of the same coin?(2008), p.8,adding "Identity" (e.g. sense of community identity, of national identity).43. "Competence" is here used as a legal, not as an educational notion (for which see Recommendation onkey competences for lifelong learning [2006] OJ L394/10, Annex).44. Removal of educational obstacles to cross-border activities (implied powers):Casagrande vLandeshauptstadt München (9/74) [1974] E.C.R. 773; [1974] 2 C.M.L.R. 423.45. Broad interpretation of "vocational training" of art.128 EEC brought situations within the scope of art.7EEC:Gravier v Liege (293/83) [1985] E.C.R. 593; [1985] 3 C.M.L.R. 1at [19]–[31];Blaizot v University ofLiège (C24/86) [1988] E.C.R. 379; [1989] 1 C.M.L.R. 57at [15]–[21];Belgium v Humbel (C-263/86) [1988]E.C.R. 5365; [1989] 1 C.M.L.R. 393at [8]–[20].See alsoEuropean Parliament v Council (C-295/90) [1992]E.C.R. I-4193; [1992] 3 C.M.L.R. 281.

E.L. Rev. 2014, 39(1), 3-26 Page 17

(Cite as: )


46. Commission v Council (Erasmus) (242/87) [1989] E.C.R. 1425; [1991] 1 C.M.L.R. 478;United Kingdomv Council (Petra) (C56/88) [1989] E.C.R. 1615; [1989] 2 C.M.L.R. 789;United Kingdom, France andGermany v Council (Comett II) (C-51/89, C-90/89 and C-94/89) [1991] E.C.R. I-2757; [1992] 1 C.M.L.R.40.47. SeeField, European Dimensions, Education, Training and the European Union (1998), p.56; Lonbay,"Education and Law" (1989) 14 E.L. Rev. 368; M. Murphy, "Covert Action?Education, Social Policy andLaw in the European Union" (2003) 18 Journal of Education Policy 551.48. Shaw, "Education and the Law in the European Community" (1992) 21 Journal of Law & Education 415,437; K. Lenaerts, "Education in European Community Law after ‘Maastricht’" (1994) 31 C.M.L. Rev. 7,9–10.See alsoB. de Witte (ed.), European Community Law of Education, Schriftenreihe Europäisches RechtVol.133 (Baden-Baden: Nomos, 1989).49. See Lane, "New Community Competences under the Maastricht Treaty" (1993) 30 C.M.L. Rev. 951:"clearly a softly-softly approach".50. See e.g.Pépin, The History of European Cooperation in Education and Training (2006), p.147.51. In itsWhite Paper on education and training, "Teaching and learning: towards the learning society"COM(95) 590 final, the Commission had highlighted the need to develop the European dimension ineducation, but the Council expressed "doubts and reservations", even about proposals concerning languagelearning.See Council Conclusions [1996] OJ C195/1, e.g. at para.D.52. Working Group V, Complementary Competencies, Final Report, CONV 375/1/02 REV 1, p.8,http://european-convention.eu.int/pdf/reg/en/02/cv00/cv00375-re01.en02.pdf[Accessed December 11,2013].53. SeeWorking Group V, Complementary Competencies, Final Report, CONV 375/1/02 REV 1, pp.10–11,http://european-convention.eu.int/pdf/reg/en/02/cv00/cv00375-re01.en02.pdf[Accessed December 11,2013].54. InCasagrande (9/74) [1974] E.C.R. 773, A.G. Warner described educational policy "as almost the last inwhich the Länder retained any independence—so that any encroachment on them by Community law wasregarded with some sensitivity".55. See also J. Charlier and S. Croché, "How European Integration is Eroding National Control overEducation Planning and Policy" (2005–06) 37 European Education 7.56. C.Ferrari-Breeur, "L’éducation et la formation professionnelle comme instruments de la citoyennetéeuropéenne" in C. Philip and P. Soldatos (eds), La citoyenneté européenne, Collection études européennes(Chaire Jean Monnet, 2000), p.177.57. SeeWorking Group V, Complementary Competencies, Final Report, CONV 375/1/02 REV 1, p.1,http://european-convention.eu.int/pdf/reg/en/02/cv00/cv00375-re01.en02.pdf[Accessed December 11,2013].See alsoL. Martin, L’Union européenne et l’économie de l’éducation: émergence d’un systèmeéducatif européen (Bruxelles: Larcier, 2011), p.169: proliferation of EU documents on education, withouthierarchy, unclear, unarticulated.58. European Parliament Resolution on institutional and legal implications of the use of "soft law"instruments [2008] OJ C187E/75: "‘soft law" (an ‘ambiguous and pernicious’ notion that should not beused) does not provide full judicial protection" (Recitals A, D).59. E.g. Council Recommendation on the validation of non-formal and informal learning [2012] OJ C398/1.60. Compare Theiler, "The European Union and the ‘European Dimension’ in Schools" (1999) 21 Journal ofEuropean Integration 307, 323.61. The principle of sincere co-operation requires national administrations and courts to interpret nationaland Union provisions "in a way which best corresponds to the aim of a recommendation":K. Lenaerts and P.van Nuffel, European Union Law (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2011), p.919.SeeAlassini v Telecom ItaliaSpA (C-317/08 to C-320/08) [2010] E.C.R. I-2213; [2010] 3 C.M.L.R. 17, referring, inter alia, toGrimaldi vFonds des Maladies Professionnelles (C-322/88) [1989] E.C.R. 4407; [1991] 2 C.M.L.R. 265at [7], [16] and[18].

E.L. Rev. 2014, 39(1), 3-26 Page 18

(Cite as: )


62. Which is surprising; see Lenaerts, "Education in European Community Law after ‘Maastricht’" (1994)31 C.M.L. Rev. 7, 31.With the European Parliament Resolution on institutional and legal implications of theuse of "soft law" instruments in mind, recommendations second indent should not be used to circumvent thelegislative procedure of the first indent.63. Before the Lisbon Treaty, decisions as defined in art.249 EC needed specific addressees.Decisions suigeneris were taken, without addressee.The Lisbon Treaty allows for addressed or non-addressed decisions(art.288 TFEU).64. Decision 819/95 establishing the Community action programme "Socrates" [1995] OJ L87/10;Decision253/2000 establishing the second phase of the Community action programme in the field of education"Socrates" [2000] OJ L28/1.65. Decision 1720/2006 establishing an action programme in the field of lifelong learning [2006] OJL327/45.66. Regulation 1288/2013 establishing "Erasmus+": the Union programme for education, training, youth andsport and repealing Decisions 1719/2006, 1720/2006 and 1298/2008 [2013] OJ L347/50; on CommissionProposal COM(2011)788 final.67. Lenaerts, "Education in European Community Law after ‘Maastricht’" (1994) 31 C.M.L. Rev. 7, 31,37–38: "The essential aspect of ‘incentive measures’ is that they may impose obligations of cooperation onthe Member States … which will take place only for minor matters, such as compulsory exchange ofinformation";Field, European Dimensions, Education, Training and the European Union (1998), p.185.Compare before 1992: Shaw, "Education and the Law in the European Community" (1992) 21 Journal ofLaw & Education 442.68. See also obligations inart.5 of the Socrates Decision [2000] OJ L28/1.69. See further obligations in 2013 Erasmus+ Regulation arts 21–23, 31 and 37.70. If Member States incorrectly implement them in the period prescribed, individual actors can have theright to invoke them in court, to give the provisions "effet utile".71. Albako Bundesanstalt für landwirtschaftliche Marktordnung (249/85) [1987] E.C.R. 2345at[17].Vertical, not horizontal direct effect:Carp Snc di L. Moleri eV Corsi v Ecorad Srl (C-80/06) [2007]E.C.R. I-4473at [22].72. Thus, although educational autonomy of Member States is being respected, this form of EU actionpotentially has far-reaching effects (next to the huge practical impact of financial incentives).See Lenaerts,"Education in European Community Law after ‘Maastricht’" (1994) 31 C.M.L. Rev. 7, 15, 38;J. Lonbay,"Reflections on Education and Culture in EC Law" in R. Craufurd Smith (ed.), Culture and European UnionLaw (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), pp.243, 250.73. I thus disagree with Theiler, "The European Union and the ‘European Dimension’ in Schools" (1999) 21Journal of European Integration 307, 323 and 325, for whom the Maastricht Treaty has "not strengthened theCommission’s and the EP’s ability promote the ‘European dimension’ in national school curricula in asignificant way", arguing that it "does not figure among the areas which the Treaty lists as subject topotential Union involvement", and even if this list were only exemplary, Community action "could at themost be of a ‘soft’ and non-binding type".Neither do I agree withLonbay, "Reflections on Education andCulture in EC Law" in Culture and European Union Law (2004), p.273: "the EC itself not being allowed totake … action."74. Theiler, "The European Union and the ‘European Dimension’ in Schools" (1999) 21 Journal of EuropeanIntegration 307, 331.Compare with former curricular actions (references e.g. in fn.27).75. Also for the European Union, cultural diversity is important:Union de Televisiones ComercialesAsociadas (UTECA) v Administracion General del Estado (C-222/07) [2009] E.C.R. I-1407; [2009] 3C.M.L.R. 2;Groener (379/87) [1989] E.C.R. 3967.76. Lifelong Learning Decision 1720/2006 art.35(1)a,Recital 31.See alsoart.35(2)andart.34(f).77. See"Draft General Budget 2011—Statement of revenue and expenditure" COM(2010) 750 final, 397.78. Call for Proposals—EACEA/18/11 Jean Monnet programme: Key activity 1, Information and research

E.L. Rev. 2014, 39(1), 3-26 Page 19

(Cite as: )


activities for "Learning EU @ school" [2011] OJ C174/06, p.8.79. "Learning EU @ school", Call for Proposals [2011] OJ C174/06, Point 4.80. SeeReport of Project Coordinators’ Meeting, Jean Monnet Programme—"Learning EU @ School", BestPractice and Cooperation (EACEA, December 3–4, 2012),http://eacea.ec.europa.eu/llp/events/2012/documents/jm_project_dec2012/learning_europe_at_school_pc_meeting_report_FINAL.pdf[Accessed December 11, 2013].81. CompareReport, Jean Monnet Programme—"Learning EU @ School", December 3–4, 2012), "bearingin mind" p.5.82. Lifelong Learning Decision 1720/2006 art.34(a); 2013 Erasmus+ Regulation art.10.83. Morgan v Bezirksregierung KölnandBucher v Landrat des Kreises Düren (C-11/06 and C-12/06) [2007]E.C.R. I-9161; [2009] 1 C.M.L.R. 1at [24].84. A.G. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer inMorgan and Bucher (C-11/06 and C-12/06) [2007] E.C.R. I-9161at[90]–[96].85. On this principle, seeHofmann, Rowe and Türk, Administrative Law and Policy of the European Union(2011), pp.145–148.86. Morgan and Bucher (C-11/06 and C-12/06) [2007] E.C.R. I-9161at [40].87. See e.g. Lenaerts, "The Principle of Democracy in the Case-law of the European Court of Justice" (2013)62 International & Comparative Law Quarterly 271.88. Hofmann, Rowe and Türk, Administrative Law and Policy of the European Union (2011), p.146.89. Lenaerts, "The Principle of Democracy in the Case-law of the European Court of Justice" (2013) 62International & Comparative Law Quarterly 271, adopting the "dual structure of democratic legitimacy",referring toA. von Bogdandy, "The European Lesson for International Democracy: The Significance ofArticles 9 to 12 EU Treaty for International Organizations", Jean Monnet Working Paper Series 2/11,available athttp://www.jeanmonnetprogram.org/papers/11/110201.html[Accessed January 6, 2014].90. Hofmann, Rowe and Türk, Administrative Law and Policy of the European Union (2011), p.148.91. This is to be seen in a broader context where also EU measures taken on other legal bases may impact onnational educational content.A prominent example is mutual recognition of diplomas (art.53 TFEU), e.g. formedical and paramedical diplomas, coupled with co-ordination of study curricula, and later,Directive2005/36 on the recognition of professional qualifications [2005] OJ L255/22, with minimum harmonisation:seeLenaerts and Van Nuffel, European Union Law (2011), pp.260–265.Also measures in other areas, such asculture, health, consumer protection, research and technological development or environment (arts 167–169,179 and 191 TFEU) can influence school curricula and even have harmonising effects in accordance withtheTobacco Advertisementcase law (Germany v European Parliament and Council (Tobacco I) (C-376/98)[2000] E.C.R. I-8419; [2000] 3 C.M.L.R. 1175at [77]–[78].Outside the European Union, theintergovernmental Bologna process created a "harmonisation by stealth":S. Garben, EU Higher EducationLaw: The Bologna Process and Harmonization by Stealth, European Monographs 76 (Alphen aan den Rijn:Kluwer Law, 2011).92. Council Decision 89/489 establishing an action programme to promote foreign language competence inthe European Community (Lingua) [1989] OJ L239/24(legal basis: arts 128 and 235 EEC), Annex Action 4.93. See, inter alia, Shaw, "Education and the Law in the European Community" (1992) 21 Journal of Law &Education 415.94. Socrates Decision [1995] OJ L87/10.95. Socrates Decision [1995] OJ L87/10, Annex, Chapter II, Action 1; see alsoart.3(a).96. Socrates Decision [2000] OJ L28/1.97. Socrates Decision [2000] OJ L28/1 art.1.98. Socrates Decision [2000] OJ L28/1, Action 1, 2(d).99. Lifelong Learning Decision, [2006] OJ L327/45 art.22.100. J. Shaw, "From the Margins to the Centre: Education and Training Law and Policy" in P. Craig and G.de Búrca (eds), The Evolution of EU law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), p.555.See also J. Pertek,

E.L. Rev. 2014, 39(1), 3-26 Page 20

(Cite as: )


"Le Processus de Bologne et l’action de la Communauté en matière d’éducation" (2005) Law & EuropeanAffairs 51; L. Terry, "The Bologna Process and its Impact in Europe: it’s so Much More than a DegreeChange" (2008) 41 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law 107.101. Lifelong Learning Decision 1720/2006 art.1(a)(d)(i);art.17,1.102. But insufficient operationalisation: see fn.137.103. Lifelong Learning Decision 1720/2006 art.33, 2; see alsoRecital 17,art.1,3(g), orart.3,2(b).104. Lifelong Learning Decision 1720/2006 art.3,2(c),art.33,3; see alsoRecital 30,art.1(h),art.17,2(d),orart.32,2(d).For earlier action with curriculum implications, see e.g.Decision 2318/2003 adopting amultiannual programme (2004 to 2006) for the effective integration of information and communicationtechnologies (ICT) in education and training systems in Europe (eLearning Programme) [2003] OJ L345/9.105. Decision 1298/2008 establishing the Erasmus Mundus 2009–2013 action programme for theenhancement of quality in higher education and the promotion of intercultural understanding through co-operation with third countries [2008] OJ L340/83(action 2 and 3); 2013 Erasmus+ Regulation art.8(1)b:partnerships in the form of knowledge and skills alliances.106. E.g. Recommendation on transnational mobility within the Community for education and trainingpurposes: European Quality Charter for Mobility [2006] OJ L394/5 (Recitals 1 and 2, and Annex aboutlearning plans); Council Recommendation, Youth on the move—promoting the learning mobility of youngpeople [2011] OJ C199/1 (point 3 and 4); Recommendation on mobility within the Community for students,persons undergoing training, volunteers, teachers and trainers [2001] OJ L215/30 at I1(b).107. I.e. reducing the share of early school leavers to less than 10% and increasing the proportion of 30–34year olds having completed tertiary or equivalent education to at least 40%: Council Conclusions on the roleof education and training in the implementation of the "Europe 2020" strategy [2011] OJ C70/1 ("Stresses",II at paras 6–7; "Considers" at para.4).See also European Parliament Resolution on Better Schools: anagenda for European cooperation [2010] OJ C137 E/43; Council Conclusions on increasing the level ofbasic skills in the context of European cooperation on schools for the 21st century [2010] OJ C323/04, p.13,and especially Commission, "Rethinking Education: Investing in skills for better socio-economic outcomes"COM(2012) 669 final, e.g. pp.6, 11.See, inter alia, response of the Council [2013] OJ C64/5; of theCommittee of the Regions [2013] C139/10; and of the European Economic and Social Committee [2013] OJC327/58.108. Recommendation on key competences for lifelong learning [2006] OJ L394/10, Annex. See alsoErasmus+ Regulation art.2(19); andCommission Staff Working Document, "Assessment of Key Competencesin initial education and training: Policy Guidance" SWD(2012) 371 final.109. See also European Parliament Resolution on key competences for a changing world: implementation ofthe Education and Training 2010 work programme [2011] OJ C161E/8.110. Recommendation on the establishment of the European Qualifications Framework for lifelong learning[2008] OJ C111/1.See Pépin, "Education in the Lisbon Strategy: Assessment and Prospects" (2011) 46European Journal of Education 25, 27.See also 2013 Erasmus+ Regulation art.9.111. G. Halász and A. Michel, "Key Competences in Europe: Interpretation, Policy Formulation andImplementation" (2011) 46 European Journal of Education 289; A. Kleibrink, "The EU as a NormEntrepreneur: the Case of Lifelong Learning" (2011) 46 European Journal of Education 70.See alsoCommission Staff Working Document, "Assessment of Key Competences in Initial Education and Training"SWD(2012)371 final, p.6;Eurydice, Citizenship Education in Europe (2012), p.17.112. SeeCouncil Conclusions on increasing the level of basic skills in the context of European co-operationon schools for the 21st century [2010] OJ C323/04.113. Lonbay, "Reflections on Education and Culture in EC Law" in Culture and European Union Law(2004), p.256.114. See also Protocol No.2, and art.352(2) TFEU.115. H. Ertl and D. Phillips, "Standardization in EU Education and Training Policy: Findings from aEuropean Research Network" (2006) 42 Comparative Education 77, 78.

E.L. Rev. 2014, 39(1), 3-26 Page 21

(Cite as: )


116. Commission, DG EAC, A. Hingel, Education Policies and European Governance, Contribution to theInterservice Groups on European Governance (2001), p.4.117. Lenaerts, "Education in European Community Law after ‘Maastricht’" (1994) 31 C.M.L. Rev. 7, 41;see also K. Lenaerts, "Subsidiarity and Community Competence in the Field of Education" (1995) 1Columbia Journal of European Law 1.118. Lenaerts and Van Nuffel, European Union Law (2011), p.135: a dynamic concept, allowing Unionaction to be expanded where circumstances so require, or to be restricted;Pépin, The History of EuropeanCooperation in Education and Training (2006), p.146.119. For "a fairly cautious, or gentle, view of intensity of review" of the subsidiarity principle by the ECJ,seeEdward and Lane on European Union Law, edited by D. Edward and R. Lane (Cheltenham: EdwardElgar, 2013), p.49.120. This objective was added to the Proposal from the Commission after amendments.Unfortunately, thecontribution to "the further development of European citizenship" (amendment 365) was not taken up in theRegulation.121. See Lifelong Learning Decision 1720/2006 art.2, Recital 47.See alsoJ. De Groof and B. Friess,"Opportunities and Limitations for a European Education Policy" (1997) 1 European Journal for EducationLaw and Policy 9, 11-12.122. In the early 1990s, none of the European Parliament, the Commission, the Council or the Ministers ofEducation considered the European dimension as necessarily linked to transnational activities.See e.g. "theneed for a Community strategy to promote the European dimension in courses followed by all students,whether in their own country or abroad":Recital 9 in the Socrates Decision [1995] OJ L87/10.123. SeeLifelong Learning Decision 1720/2006 art.5.124. Lifelong Learning Decision 1720/2006 art.36,1(a);art.2: "unilateral" means involving a singleinstitution.See furtherart.3,2(d)andart.33,4. National action can also concern field observations (nationalsurveys and indicators).125. In Proposal amendment 366, Ivo Belet had rightly asked for special attention to "grassroots and localprojects close to the citizens with European added value", with justification: "Some projects do not alwayshave a transnational aspect but are local projects with a European theme.These projects also have a clearadded value and can bring the EU closer to the citizens."Observe also the "or" in the Opinion of theCommittee of the Regions on "Rethinking Education" [2013] OJ C139/51 at para.48: subsidiarity andproportionality ask EU measures to focus on "areas where there is a strong European dimension,orwheretrans-national aspects are involved …" (emphasis added).126. 2013 Erasmus+ Regulation art.3, 2(b).127. 2013 Erasmus+ Regulation art.3, 2(c).128. See fn.153, and accompanying text.129. 2006 Recommendation Recitals 13, 14.130. Commissioner Figel before European Parliament (2006 Resolution on initiatives to complement schoolcurricula [2006] OJ C306E/100).See also fnn.12–13; Joint progress report on the implementation of theEducation and Training 2010 work programme [2010] OJ C117/1.Recent reports confirm and specify theproblems:A. Dunne, D. Ulicna and S. Oberheidt, Learning Europe at School(DG EAC, Final report,submitted by ICF GHK, 2013);Participatory Citizenship in the European Union(Institute of Education,University of London, commissioned by the European Commission, Europe for Citizens Programme,2012).See earlier, inter alia, H. Ertl, "European Union policies in education and training: the Lisbon agendaas a turning point?"(2006) 42 Comparative Education 5, 8 ("Research has shown … that effective awarenessand implementation of the European Dimension has been very patchy", with references); A. Convery and K.Kerr, "Exploring the European Dimension in Education: Practitioners’ Attitudes" (2005–06) 37 EuropeanEducation 22; H. Walkenhorst, "Problems of Political Education in a Multi-level Polity: Explaining Non-teaching of European Union Issues in German Secondary Schooling" (2006) 14 Journal of ContemporaryEuropean Studies 353; S. Philippou, A. Keating, and D. Hinderliter, "Citizenship Education Curricula:

E.L. Rev. 2014, 39(1), 3-26 Page 22

(Cite as: )


Comparing the Multiple Meanings of Supra-national Citizenship in Europe and Beyond" (2009) 41 Journalof Curriculum Studies 291.131. Committee on Culture and Education, final report A6-0267/2006, p.6.132. See 2013 Erasmus+ Regulation, Recital 49;Jippes v Minister van Landbouw, Natuurbeheer en Visserij(C-189/01) [2001] E.C.R. I-5689at [81];Lenaerts and Van Nuffel, European Union Law (2011), p.144.133. M. Dougan, "The Constitutional Dimension to the Case law on Union Citizenship" (2006) 31 E.L. Rev.613;K. Lenaerts, "‘Civis Europaeus Sum’: From the Cross-border Link to the Status of Citizen of theUnion", in P. Cardonnel, A. Rosas, and N. Wahl (eds), Constitutionalising The EU Judicial System—Essaysin Honour of Pernilla Lindh (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2012), p.213.134. E.g. "National systems have very much invested in constructing their own identity … If we want tobuild a lasting union of solidarity we also need to invest in European identity":Klaus Welle, SecretaryGeneral of the European Parliament (March 29, 2012),http://euobserver.com/843/115759[AccessedDecember 12, 2013].135. See, inter alia, tensions already in the Janne Report (1973) Bull.EC, Supplement 10/73, p.51;H.Kotthoff and R. Denk, "Last Past the Post?Teacher Education and the European Higher Education Area" inH. Kotthoff and S. Moutsios (eds), Education Policies in Europe: Economy, Citizenship, Diversity (Münster:Waxmann Verlag, 2007), p.115 at p.125;Shaw, "From the Margins to the Centre" in The Evolution of EUlaw (1999), p.556.136. Thus, e.g., in the objectives of theLifelong Learning Decision 1720/2006 art.1(a)(d)(i);art.17(1).137. E.g. compare paras 1 and 2 of art.17. Also objective (e) to enhance the European dimension in teachereducation needs further operationalisation.138. Proposal "Erasmus for All", Recital 3, adopted as the 2013 Erasmus+ Regulation.139. Recommendation on key competences for lifelong learning [2006] OJ L394/10, Annex 6(B).140. Definition in Hoskins, D’Hombres, and Campbell, "Does Formal Education Have an Impact on ActiveCitizenship Behaviour?"(2008) 7 European Educational Research Journal 386, 389.For critical reflections:G. Biesta, "What Kind of Citizenship for European Higher Education?Beyond the Competent ActiveCitizen" (2009) 8 European Educational Research Journal 146.141. B. Hoskins, J. Jesinghaus et al., Measuring Active Citizenship in Europe (JRC, CRELL, 2006),pp.10–11.142. Survey questions used for baseline indicators inHoskins, Jesinghaus et al, Measuring active citizenshipin Europe (2006), pp.65–66; B. Hoskins and M. Mascherini, "Measuring Active Citizenship through theDevelopment of a Composite Indicator" (2009) 90 Social Indicators Research 459, 472–473;B. Hoskins, E.Villalba et al., Measuring Civic Competence in Europe: A Composite Indicator based on IEA CivicEducation Study 1999 for 14 years old in School (2008), p.21.See further J. Holford, "Hard Measures forSoft Stuff: Citizenship Indicators and Educational Policy under the Lisbon Strategy" (2008) 7 EuropeanEducational Research Journal 331.143. Code S44 in Appendix 1 to Hoskins, Jesinghaus et al., Measuring Active Citizenship in Europe (2006),pp.65–66.144. "Commission Staff Working Document, Lisbon Strategy evaluation document" SEC(2010) 114 final, 4.See also Pépin, "Education in the Lisbon Strategy: Assessment and Prospects" (2011) 46 European Journalof Education 25, 29: "A Well-established European Framework but a Weak Ownership at National Level"; J.Jallade, "International Approaches to Education: a Review of some Major Cooperative Programmes" (2011)46 European Journal of Education 7 (and "Editorial", p.1: limited impact of IO programmes on educationsystems).145. Cf.J. Shaw, "Citizenship: Contrasting Dynamics at the Interface of Integration and Constitutionalism"in The Evolution of EU law (2011), p.575: not citizenshipofthe European Union, but citizenshipinthe EUcontext.146. See for instanceJ. Arthur and D. Wright, Teaching Citizenship in the Secondary School (London: DavidFulton Publishers, 2001), only referring to some EU websites.

E.L. Rev. 2014, 39(1), 3-26 Page 23

(Cite as: )


147. A. Keating, "Educating Europe’s Citizens: moving from National to Post-national Models of Educatingfor European Citizenship" (2009) 13 Citizenship Studies 135, 147.See also Theiler, "The European Unionand the ‘European Dimension’ in Schools" (1999) 21 Journal of European Integration 307, 332: "Especiallyif contrasted against the fervour with which all the Member States continue to design their ’civics’, history,and geography curricula as vehicles to advance their specificallynationalsocialization agendas, the‘European dimension’ is still a negligible entity in the school curricula throughout the Union."148. European Parliament, The European Dimension in Secondary Education in Europe (EDUC 11-2003),p.4, especially since 2002.Asking to report specifically on teaching about the European Union underscoredits importance.149.Seehttps://webgate.ec.europa.eu/fpfis/mwikis/eurydice/index.php/Mobility_and_Internationalisation[Accessed December 19, 2013]..150. E.g.Commission, "Multilingualism: an Asset for Europe and a Shared Commitment" COM(2008) 566final, p.14.151. 2013 Erasmus+ Regulation art.5 1(d), and Recital 8. Only a "European dimension" in sport: art.4(e).152. Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on "Erasmus for All" [2012] OJ C225/200, p.3, para.13. SeealsoCouncil Conclusions on a strategic framework for European co-operation in education and training (ET2020) [2009] OJ C119/2, mentioning active citizenship as one of the four strategic objectives, but withoutreference to the European dimension in education.153. It could be an answer to Commissioner Figel’s emphasis on the importance of clear views on how tointegrate the European dimension in school curricula and how to provide schools with both the material andthe opportunities to learn about Europe in practice ([2006] OJ C306E/100).See also Opinion of the EuropeanEconomic and Social Committee, Reconciling the national and European dimensions of communicatingEurope [2009] OJ C27/152, point 3.4.154. Treaties signed by all Member States: TEU, TFEU, Charter.155. Cf. "It is possible to designate an EU-specific essence of fundamental rights enshrined in Article 2TEU": A. von Bogdandy, M. Kottmann et al., "Reverse Solange—Protecting the Essence of FundamentalRights against EU Member States" (2012) 49 C.M.L. Rev. 489, 512.156. Generalising, it is said that the Treaties are the writingin extensoof this principle.See furtherM. Bell,"The Principle of Equal Treatment: Widening and Deepening" in The Evolution of EU Law (2011), p.611;C. Maubernard, "Le principe d’égalité de Traitement: un Principe Cardinal du droit de l’Union Européenne"(2010) 540 Revue du marché commun et de l’UE 373.157. See arts 2, 3, 21, 24, 31, 32 TEU; and arts 67, 80, 122, 194, 222 TFEU.158. In my experience, stories based on well-chosen cases from the ECJ or SOLVIT (EuropeanCommission) provide living examples for discussion on EU values and basic principles, in secondary schoolclassrooms as well as in university workshops (e.g. the story of environmentalists blocking the BrennerPass:Schmidberger Internationale Transporte Planzuge v Austria (C-112/00) [2003] E.C.R. I-5659; [2003] 2C.M.L.R. 34).159. Efforts are needed to develop them; seeCommission, "Rethinking Education: Investing in skills forbetter socio-economic outcomes" COM(2012) 669 final, p.3.160. Not the mind of a nation state. cf. Robert Schuman: "The European spirit signifies being conscious ofbelonging to a cultural family and to have a willingness to serve that community in the spirit of totalmutuality … safeguard the diversities and aspirations of each nation while coordinating them" (Strasbourg,May 16, 1949).161. A "common reference point": cf. Recital 14 of Recommendation on key competences for lifelonglearning [2006] OJ L394/10.162. Sceptics towards the curricular European dimension in citizenship education fear potentialEurocentrism.S. Goulard, L’Europe pour les Nuls, 2nd edn (Paris: First Editions, 2009), p.455: "l’objectifne serait certes pas de formater des petits Européens en série (comme le faisaient les Jeunesses de la RDA)

E.L. Rev. 2014, 39(1), 3-26 Page 24

(Cite as: )


mais de permettre à tous les enfants de l’Union d’avoir dans leur balluchon les outils de compréhension de lacomplexité européenne. Cela supposerait: une véritable instruction civique européenne …".See alsofnn.14–15 and accompanying text.163. Taking up best practices in many Member States.These teachers could form mobile teams (movingfrom school to school as a flying squad), offering specific EU learning hours to pupils (who remain at home)and train local teachers (often unprepared for EU complexities) to integrate the European dimensionthroughout courses, in accordance with national curricula.More recommendations inA. Dunne, D. Ulicnaand S. Oberheidt, Learning Europe at School(DG EAC, Final report, submitted by ICF GHK, 2013); and B.Hoskins and D. Kerr,Final Study Summary and Policy Recommendations: Participatory Citizenship in theEuropean Union(Report 4) (Institute of Education, University of London, commissioned by the EuropeanCommission, Europe for Citizens Programme, 2012).164. E.g. J. Sayer, "European Perspectives of Teacher Education and Training" (2006) 42 ComparativeEducation 63.165. See e.g.M. Nardo, M. Saisana et al., Tools for Composite Indicators Building, Report (2005) p.6,http://ipsc.jrc.ec.europa.eu/[Accessed December 12, 2013].166. A controversial development: "Die falsche Methode"; seeJ. Habermas, Zur Verfassung Europas: EinEssay (Berlin: Suhrkamp, 2011), pp.121–123.See further N. Alexiadou, "The Europeanisation of EducationPolicy: Researching Changing Governance and ‘New’ Modes of Coordination" (2007) 2 Research inComparative and International Education 102;R. Dale, "Studying Globalisation and Europeanisation inEducation: Lisbon, the Open Method of Coordination and Beyond" in R. Dale and S. Robertson (eds),Globalisation and Europeanisation in Education (Oxford: Oxford Symposium Books, 2009), p.121; Holford,"Hard Measures for Soft Stuff" (2008) 7 European Educational Research Journal 331; M. Lawn,"Standardizing the European Education Policy Space" (2011) 10 European Educational Research Journal259; Pépin, "Education in the Lisbon Strategy: Assessment and Prospects" (2011) 46 European Journal ofEducation 25, 25; D. Rutkowski and L. Engel, "Soft Power and Hard Measures: Large-scale Assessment,Citizenship and the European Union" (2010) 9 European Educational Research Journal 381.167. European Parliament Resolution on institutional and legal implications of the use of "soft law"instruments [2008] OJ C187E/75, point 2 and Recitals K, X.168. White Paper, "European Governance" COM(2001) 428 final, p.22.See alsoWorking Group XI on SocialEurope, Final Report, CONV 516/1/03, paras 42–43.169. Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on "Erasmus for All" [2012] OJ C225/200, para.58.170. Building a composite indicator starts with a study of sub-dimensions. See e.g.Hoskins, Villalba et al.,Measuring Civic Competence in Europe 2008), p.21.The European dimension in education is less an enigmathan a multi-faceted concept (compare fn.20).At the root of the failure of the "European Dimension inEducation" to influence educational practices in the Member States lies the vagueness of the concept and theabsence of operationalised objectives: Ertl and Phillips, "Standardization in EU Education and TrainingPolicy" (2006) 42 Comparative Education 77, 85.See also theReport from the Commission on theimplementation of the Socrates programme 1995–1999, COM(2001) 75 final, point 2.1.171. Cf. fn.42.172. See, for instance, Council Recommendation on policies to reduce early school leaving [2011] OJC191/1; or the new EU benchmark for language teaching:Commission Staff Working Document, "LanguageCompetences for Employability, Mobility and Growth" SWD(2012) 372 final.See also fn.107.173. E.g.Prof.Paul de Grauwe (European Institute, London School of Economics) in "Wat als de EuroValt?"(August 17, 2011), Netto,http://netto.tijd.be/sparen_en_beleggen/beleggen/Wat_als_de_euro_valt.9088948-2213.art?ckc=1[AccessedDecember 12, 2013].174. Delors in less turbulent times: "In confronting the many challenges that the future holds in store,humankind sees in education an indispensable asset in its attempt to attain the ideals of peace, freedom andsocial justice":J. Delors, "Education: the Necessary Utopia" in UNESCO, Learning: the Treasure Within

E.L. Rev. 2014, 39(1), 3-26 Page 25

(Cite as: )


(Paris: UNESCO Publishing, 1996).175. Commission, "Rethinking Education: Investing in skills for better socio-economic outcomes"COM(2012) 669 final.See particularly Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on "Rethinking Education"[2013] OJ C139/51, para.2: "should not overlook the goals of active citizenship".176. Ryba’s conclusion in 1992 is thus still valid in 2013: next to programmes as Erasmus, etc., there is "themore fundamental, if less glamorous, work that needs to be done in developing the European dimension ineducation through schools, the training of teachers, and the development of learning resources": Ryba,"Toward a European Dimension in Education" (1992) 36 Comparative Education Review 15.

END OF DOCUMENT

E.L. Rev. 2014, 39(1), 3-26 Page 26

(Cite as: )
