Upload
holdenagnewpop1794
View
218
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/13/2019 Would Charging Continental Students Higher Tuition than British Students at British Institutions of Higher Education
1/32
Law548CEuropean Union LawHolden Agnew-Pople
1
Would Charging Continental Students H igher Tui tion than Br iti sh Students at Bri tish
I nstituti ons of H igher Education Be a Violation of European Union Law?
INTRODUCTION
It has long been assumed that European Union law precludes institutions of higher
education within its jurisdiction from discriminating between national students and foreign
European Union (EU) studentsregarding tuition.1Consequently, students who are citizens of
the EU are currently able to study at any institution of higher education within the EU without
having to pay the high international student fees that non-EU citizens studying in the EU have to
pay.2As Davies notes, positive corollaries of the aforementioned fact are that (i) study abroad is
both a possible and an attractive option for many EU students and (ii) institutions of higher
education within the EU are a lot more diverse than they were in the past.3As Davies also noted,
however, the supposed inability of EU institutions of higher education to charge foreign EU
nationals higher tuition has at least one very significant consequence: the cost of attending an
institution of higher education in the EU for EU students is highly subsidized by Member State
governments, respectively, so, should enough nationals from other Member States decide to
study in a particular Member State, that latters education budget will quickly become
inadequate, leading to higher tuition for everybody.4
The United Kingdom is particularly affected by the aforementioned supposed inability to
charge foreign EU nationals higher tuition than home students.5This is because British
institutions of higher education attract a prodigious amount of students from other Member
States each year. During the 2011/12 academic year, for example, 132,550 students from other
1Gareth Davies,Higher Education, Equal Access, and Residence Conditions: Does EU Law Allow Member States
to Charge Higher Fees to Students Not Previously Resident?, 12MAASTRICHT J.EUR.&COMP.L.227,227(2005).2Id.
3Id.
4Id.at 278.
5Home students are students who are citizens of the country in which they attend university.
8/13/2019 Would Charging Continental Students Higher Tuition than British Students at British Institutions of Higher Education
2/32
8/13/2019 Would Charging Continental Students Higher Tuition than British Students at British Institutions of Higher Education
3/32
Law548CEuropean Union LawHolden Agnew-Pople
3
ending the subsidization of foreign EU nationals educations at British institutions of higher
education.
Upon close examination of the issue, it becomes clear that, despite the strong contrary
belief, British institutions of higher education may be able to generally deny tuition subsidies to
foreign EU nationals higher without violating EU law. I shall explain why in this essay.
I. BACKGROUND
During the middle of the twentieth century, Europe began the process of federalization.14
To facilitate this process, supranational European governmental institutions developed the
concept of the four freedoms: capital, goods, services and people.15
The last of the four
freedoms listed in the previous sentence, the free movement of people through the EU, was
created to allow Europeans to capitalize on the opportunities provided by the other freedoms.16
To effectuate the free movement of people within the EU, EU citizenship and laws and
regulations curtailing national immigration laws, as applied to European Union citizens, were put
into effect.17
Consequently, the countries that make up the European Union (Member States)
are very limited in their ability to control the ingress and settlement of EU citizens within their
territories.18
Additionally, Member States are very limited in their ability to deny EU citizens
the Union and Their Family Members to Move and Reside Freely Within the Territory of the Member StatesAmending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and Repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC,
73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, 2004 O.J. (L 158) 77.14Finn Laursen,Federalism: From Classical Theory to Modern Day Practice in the EU and Other Polities, inThe
EU and Federalism: Polities and Policies Compared 3, 3-24 (2011).15Michael Johns,A Problem by Their Own Hands: Intra-EU Migration and Its Implications for Europe, in The EU
and Federalism: Polities and Policies Compared 245, 245 (2011).16Id.
17Id.
18Id.at 249.
8/13/2019 Would Charging Continental Students Higher Tuition than British Students at British Institutions of Higher Education
4/32
Law548CEuropean Union LawHolden Agnew-Pople
4
who have availed themselves of their mobility rights access to the benefits that their own citizens
receive, such as social security payments.19
Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004
(Directive 2004/38/EC) is the mechanism used by the European Union to ensure that Member
States facilitate the EUsgoal of the free movement of people within the Union. Article 7(1)(c)
of the Directive makes it clear that Member States are precluded from denying the right of
residence to an EU citizen from another Member State who is enrolled at an institution of higher
education within its borders and is able to demonstrate that he has both adequate health insurance
there and sufficient pecuniary resources to avoid burdening the social assistance system.20Unlike
the case of foreign students studying in the United States, then, a student from, say, Italy, a
Member State of the EU, is not required to obtain a visa from the British government prior to
commencing his studies at a university in the United Kingdom, another Member State of the EU.
An even greater dichotomy between foreign university students situationin the United States
and foreign EU university students situation in another Member State is the fact thatin virtually
all situations the latter group receives the same benefits as university students who are citizens of
the host Member State21
receive. Pursuant to Article 24 of Directive 2004/38/EC, [A]ll Union
citizens residing on the basis of this Directive in the territory of the host Member State shall
enjoy equal treatment with the nationals of that Member State within the scope of the Treaty.22
19
Id.at 250.20Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the Right of Citizens of
the Union and Their Family Members to Move and Reside Freely Within the Territory of the Member States
Amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and Repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC,
73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, art. 7, 2004 O.J. (L 158) 77, 93.21Host Member State means a Member State to which a Union citizen moves in order to exercise his/her right of
free movement and residence.Id.at art. 2(3), 88.22Id.at art. 24(1), 112. It is important to note that the application of Article 24(1) is restricted by Article 24(2),
which states that the host Member State shall not be obliged to confer entitlement to social assistance during the
first three months of residence or, where appropriate, the longer period provided for in Article 14(4)(b), nor shall it
8/13/2019 Would Charging Continental Students Higher Tuition than British Students at British Institutions of Higher Education
5/32
8/13/2019 Would Charging Continental Students Higher Tuition than British Students at British Institutions of Higher Education
6/32
Law548CEuropean Union LawHolden Agnew-Pople
6
II. ANALYSIS
Part A: Would Article 24 of Directive 2004/38/EC Be Infringed If British Institutions of Higher
Education Based Tuition on How Long One Has Lived in the United Kingdom?
If one were to have analyzed whether it is permissible for British institutions of higher
education to base tuition on how long one has lived in the United Kingdom prior to the middle of
the last decade, it is virtually certain that he would have reached a negative conclusion. This is
because the leading case on the issue prior to that time was Gravier,27
and this case lends plenty
of support to the argument that it would be impermissible for British institutions of higher
education to base tuition on the length of ones residence in the country.
In Gravier, Francoise Gravier, a French student at the Academie Royale des Beaux-Arts,
a higher education art school in Liege, Belgium, was required to pay an enrollment fee that only
foreign students whose parents are not resident in Belgium were required to pay to attend a
higher educational institution run or supported by the state.28
He challenged the statute, arguing
that it restricts his freedom of movement provided for under EU law, and this litigation
ultimately ended up before the European Court of Justice.29
The Court was faced with two
issues: (i) whether EU laws ambit encompasses the situation of EU citizens who enter the
territory of another Member State for the sole purpose of taking part in vocational training and, if
so, (ii) whether the aforementioned enrollment fee violates EU law.30
Regarding the first issue, the Court held that access to vocational training is within the
ambit of EU law.31The Court reached this holding after finding that (i) EU institutions have
27Case 293/83, Gravier v. City of Liege, 1985 E.C.R. 606.
28Id.at 607-08.
29Id.at 607, 609.
30Id.at 609.
31Id.at 612.
8/13/2019 Would Charging Continental Students Higher Tuition than British Students at British Institutions of Higher Education
7/32
Law548CEuropean Union LawHolden Agnew-Pople
7
given a great deal of attention to the problems of access to vocational training and its
improvement within the EU and (ii) access to vocational training in other Member States is
likely to promote free movement of people within the EU by enabling them to get a qualification
in the Member State in which they intend to work and enabling them to develop their talents in
the Member States that have good programs in their desired areas of study.32
In other words, the
right to receive vocational training anywhere within the EU, according to the Court, is a
corollary of the principle of the free movement of people. Regarding the second issue, the Court
was not receptive to the Belgian governmentsargument that charging foreign EU nationals
higher tuition than Belgian nationals was justified on the ground that foreign nationals do not pay
income tax in Belgium, reasoning that the cost of higher art education is not borne by students of
Belgian nationality.33
This led the Court to conclude that the higher tuition charged to foreign EU
nationals was based on their nationality.34
These findings lead the Court to ultimately hold that
the enrollment fee at issue violated EU law because it constituted discrimination on the grounds
of nationality,35
an action antithetical to EU law.36
Graviers holding is now applied to all higher education, not just vocational training.
This was made clear by the European Court of Justice inDHoop, where it held that the freedom
of movement encompasses the right to pursue higher education in general, not just vocational
training.37
In addition to Gravierexplicitly holding that EU universities may not charge EU
nationals who are foreign higher tuition than nationals of the host Member State on the basis of
32Id.at 612-13.
33Id.at 610-11.
34Id.at 611.
35Id.at 613.
36See supra Part I.
37Case C-224/98,DHoop v. Office nationale de lemploi , 2002 E.C.R. I-6191, paras 29-34.
8/13/2019 Would Charging Continental Students Higher Tuition than British Students at British Institutions of Higher Education
8/32
Law548CEuropean Union LawHolden Agnew-Pople
8
their nationality alone, the opinion can be read to implicitly hold that any attempt by an EU
institution of higher education to distinguish foreign EU nationals from nationals from the host
Member State regarding tuition will constitute discrimination and, therefore, violate EU law. If
the lack of foreign nationals paying income tax was not a good enough argument to prevent the
Court from holding that they were being discriminated against on the basis of nationality, what
would be? After all, being a taxpayer is what has traditionally been viewed, and still is in many
countries, as entitling one and ones family to receive benefits from the state which others do not
receive.38
In the 2000s, the cases Collins,Bidar, andForsterprovided an answer to this question.
At issue in Collinswas one of the conditions that the British government requires for an
individual to be eligible to receivejobseekers allowance, a social benefit provided to
unemployed British residents who are out of work but actively seeking it.39
The condition at
issue is that a single claimant must be habitually resident in the United Kingdom,the Channel
Islands, the Isle of Man, or the Republic of Ireland to receivejobseekers allowance.40
The challenge to the aforementioned condition on the reception ofjobseekers allowance
was brought by Mr. Collins.41
Mr. Collins was a dual citizen of the United States and Ireland.42
He arrived the United Kingdom on 31 May 1998 for the purpose of residing and finding work
there.43
Having been unable to find work and having lacked pecuniary resources, he claimed
38
While I realize that indigent people and their dependents in many states receive benefits from their respectivestates even though they do not pay taxes, it is presumed that they will one day have the pecuniary resources to pay
taxes, thus entitling them to the benefits that they receive. For instance, the reception of welfare by indigents is
viewed by their respective governments as temporary grants to be given to the former until they are able to
overcome their financial difficulties and become productive citizens once again.39Collins,supranote 23, at para 20.
40Id.at paras 16-17.
41Id.at para 20.
42Id.at para 18.
43Id.at para 19.
8/13/2019 Would Charging Continental Students Higher Tuition than British Students at British Institutions of Higher Education
9/32
Law548CEuropean Union LawHolden Agnew-Pople
9
jobseekers allowance on 8 June 1998.44
The competent authorities refused to grant him
jobseekers allowance, having claimed that he was not habitually resident in the United
Kingdom.45
Consequently, he filed suit, having claimed that EU law precludes a Member State
from implementing a scheme that prevents a foreign EU national from receiving a
noncontributory social benefit46
that nationals of the host Member State receive unless the
former has lived within the host Member State for a set period of time.47
Such a scheme, he
argued, constitutes discrimination based on nationality.48
The issue, then, that the European
Court of Justice was required to answer was whether the principle of equal treatment, laid out in
Article 24 of Directive 2004/38/EC, prohibits national legislation which makes entitlement to a
jobseekers allowance conditional on a residence requirement.
The Court held that conditioning a noncontributory social benefit to foreign EU nationals
on the satisfaction of a residency requirement can be justified as long as i) it is based on
objective considerations other than nationality and ii) it is proportionate to a legitimate aim.49
The Court found that a residency requirement is able to meet both these criteria in this context.50
First, this is because a residency requirement in this context is not based on nationality. Rather, it
is used to ensure that there is a genuine link between an applicant for jobseekers allowance
and the local employment market.51
Second, so long as a residency requirement is not longer
than necessary for a host Member State to ensure that there is a genuine link between an
44Id.
45Id.
46A noncontributory social benefit is a benefit that is not conditioned on contributions to it. It is the opposite of a
contributory social benefit, for which reception is conditioned on contributions to it. Examples of a contributory
social benefit include pensions and social security payments.47Id.at para 45.
48Id.
49Id.at para 66.
50Id.at para 73.
51Id.at para 67.
8/13/2019 Would Charging Continental Students Higher Tuition than British Students at British Institutions of Higher Education
10/32
Law548CEuropean Union LawHolden Agnew-Pople
10
applicant for jobseekers allowance and the local employment market, it would not run afoul of
the proportionality requirement.52
The Court added, however, that if a host Member State does
condition the reception of a noncontributory social benefit on the satisfaction of a residency
requirement, the residency requirement must be based on clear criteria made known to foreign
EU nationals and allow for a means of redress of a judicial nature.53
Bidaris a similar case to Collins, but it is more pertinent to the issue with which this
essay deals. Like Collins, at issue was a noncontributory social benefit conditioned on a
residency requirement, but it concerned foreign EU students instead of foreign EU workers. The
facts are as follows: Mr. Bidar entered the United Kingdom in August 1998 to accompany his
mother, who entered the country to undergo medical treatment.54
Prior to September 2001, when
he began university at University College London, he lived with his grandmother in the United
Kingdom, as her dependent, and completed secondary school.55
Having sought assistance with
maintenance costs concomitant to his pursuing a degree, Mr. Bidar applied for a student loan.56
The British government rejected his application on the ground that he was not settled in the
country.57
Consequently, he initiated a claim against the British government in which he argued
that his freedom-of-movement rights were violated by the British government as a result of its
conditioning student maintenance loans on ones being settled in the country.58
The European Court of Justice, having followed the logic of Collins, held that it is
legitimate for a Member State to condition the reception of a student maintenance loan on ones
52Id.at para 72.
53Id.
54R. v. London Borough of Ealing and Secy of State for Educ. & Skills ,supra note 23, at para 20.
55Id.at paras 20-21.
56Id.at para 22.
57Id.
58Id.at para 23.
8/13/2019 Would Charging Continental Students Higher Tuition than British Students at British Institutions of Higher Education
11/32
Law548CEuropean Union LawHolden Agnew-Pople
11
demonstration that one is sufficiently integrated into its society.59
The Court also held that a
Member State may avail itself of a residency requirement to determine whether one is
sufficiently integrated into its society.60
The United Kingdoms residency requirement at issue, however, did violate Mr. Bidars
rights.61
This is because, in addition to having precluded foreign EU students who lack
integration into British society from receiving a student maintenance loan, the residency
requirement precluded students who are integrated into British society from receiving a student
maintenance loan as well.62
Under the Student Support Regulations, which stated the eligibility
requirements for reception of student maintenance loans, it was the case that one who went to the
United Kingdom solely for the purpose of attending a higher educational institution was unable
to ever meet the requirement unless he subsequently qualified for Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68
status63
or he married a British national.64
Therefore, the scheme that the British government
used to condition the issuance of student maintenance grants was not based on objective
considerations other than nationality.65
ForsterreinforcedBidars holding. InForster, a twenty-year-old German national, Ms.
Forster, moved to the Netherlands in March 2000 to get a degree in teaching.66
Unlike the
plaintiff inBidar, however, Ms. Forster, in addition to attending school in the Netherlands, had
59Id.at para 57.
60Id.at para 59.
61Id.at para 63.
62Id.at para 61.
63Regulation (EEC) 1612/68 encompasses migrant workers and their families. Id.at para 16.
64Seeid.at paras 14-17.
65Id.at para 61. Because the scheme was not based on objective considerations other the nationality, the Court did
not have to determine whether the scheme was proportionate to the British governments aim.66Forster,supranote 23, at para 5.
8/13/2019 Would Charging Continental Students Higher Tuition than British Students at British Institutions of Higher Education
12/32
Law548CEuropean Union LawHolden Agnew-Pople
12
various kinds of paid employment there.67
For example, from October 2002 until June 2003, she
took part in a paid-work placement in a Dutch school that provides secondary education to
students who have behavioral and psychiatric problems.68
After her placement at that school,
however, Ms. Forster ceased to engage in employment for the remainder of time in school.69
During her time at school in the Netherlands, she was the beneficiary of a maintenance
grant provided by the Dutch state.70
She was awarded a maintenance grant despite the fact she
was not a Dutch national because the government considered her to be a worker within the
meaning of Article 39 EC, which qualified her to be treated the same way as Dutch nationals
regarding maintenance grants.71 After the government realized she was unemployed between
July and December 2003, however, it concluded that she was not a worker during that period
and, consequently, she was told that she had to pay back all the money she received from
maintenance grants during that period.72
The European Court of Justice rejected her argument that the Dutch governments having
forced her to repay all the money she received from maintenance grants between July and
December 2003 violated her freedom-of-movement right.73
First, it held that she stopped being a
worker the moment she stopped working.74
Therefore, she was not entitled to receiving the
maintenance grants during the aforementioned period on the basis of being a worker.75
Second,
it stated that, pursuant toBidar, a Member State may condition school maintenance grants on the
67Id.at para 16.68Id.at para 17.
69Id.at para. 18.
70Id.at para 20.
71Id.
72Id.at para 21.
73Id.at para 60.
74Id.at paras 28-31.
75Id.at paras 32-33.
8/13/2019 Would Charging Continental Students Higher Tuition than British Students at British Institutions of Higher Education
13/32
Law548CEuropean Union LawHolden Agnew-Pople
13
demonstration of a certain degree of integration into the society of that Member State and that a
residence requirement may be used to for the purpose of determining whether a foreign EU
national is sufficiently integrated into the society.76
Additionally, the Court stated that a five-year
residence requirement for the purpose of guaranteeing that a student is integrated into the society
of the host Member State is legitimate.77
It is legitimate for two reasons. The first reason is that it
does not go beyond what is necessary for a Member State to become assured that foreign EU
students are sufficiently integrated into its society.78
The second reason is that it is in accordance
with settled case law that in order to be proportionate, a residence requirement must be applied
by a Member State on the basis of clear criteria known in advance.
79
Therefore, because Ms.
Forster did not meet the residence requirement, she was not entitled to receive school
maintenance grants between July and December 2003.
Taken together, then, Collins,Bidar, andForstercan be viewed to imply that British
institutions of higher education are able to charge foreign EU nationalswith the exception of
foreign EU nationals who can be classified as workers, self-employed persons, retain the status
of a worker or self-employed person, or are a qualified family member of somebody falling
within one of those exceptions as a result of the special protection these groups are given under
EU law(1612/68-qualified persons)80studyingin the United Kingdom higher tuition on the
basis that they lack a sufficient degree of integration into British society. Each of these cases
separately held that distinguishing between prospective beneficiaries of noncontributory social
76Id.at paras 49-50.
77Id.at para 52.
78Id.at para 58.
79Id.at paras 67-70.
80See generallyDirective 2004/38/EC, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the Right
of Citizens of the Union and Their Family Members to Move and Reside Freely Within the Territory of the Member
States Amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and Repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC,
73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, 2004 O.J. (L 158) 77.
8/13/2019 Would Charging Continental Students Higher Tuition than British Students at British Institutions of Higher Education
14/32
8/13/2019 Would Charging Continental Students Higher Tuition than British Students at British Institutions of Higher Education
15/32
Law548CEuropean Union LawHolden Agnew-Pople
15
to the student, who then uses that subsidy to cover the cost of his education.83
Borrowing a
phrase from Daviess article: a grant barely touches the students hands. It is truly a disguised
fee reduction.84
Despite the strength of Daviess argument,there are reasons to distinguish student
maintenance grants from subsidized tuition. These reasons are contained in Articles 7(1)(c) and
24(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC.
As was mentioned already in this essay,85
Article 7(1)(c) of Directive 2004/38/EC makes
it clear that a Member State is precluded from denying the right of residence to an EU citizen
from another Member State who is enrolled at a university within its borders and is able to
demonstrate that he has both adequate health insurance there and sufficient pecuniary resources
to avoid burdening the social assistance system.86
Conversely, if a foreign EU student cannot
demonstrate to the host Member State that he has both adequate health insurance there and
sufficient pecuniary resources to avoid burdening its social assistance system, the host Member
State may deny him the right of residence there. This article, it can be argued, is what
distinguishes a maintenance grant from a tuition subsidy. If a foreign EU citizen were to have to
resort to the reception of a maintenance grant in order to finance his higher education in the host
Member State, there is no doubt this conduct would constitute burdening the social assistance
system and, therefore, violate Article 7(1)(c), justifying his being discharged of his right of
83Id.
84Id.
85See supraPart I.
86Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the Right of Citizens of
the Union and Their Family Members to Move and Reside Freely Within the Territory of the Member States
Amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and Repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC,
73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, art. 24(1), 2004 O.J. (L 158) 77,
112.
8/13/2019 Would Charging Continental Students Higher Tuition than British Students at British Institutions of Higher Education
16/32
Law548CEuropean Union LawHolden Agnew-Pople
16
residence. By contrast, it would be a stretch to argue that enjoying a subsidized fee to attend
school constitutes burdening the social assistance system of the host Member State.
Unlike a student maintenance grant, subsidized tuition is notpersesocial assistance.
Like roads, parks, and libraries, subsidized tuition in EU countries is a public good, meaning it is
a commodity provided without profit to everybody within a community by the government for
the formers well-being. Subsidized tuition is an EU public good because it is provided by the
EUs Member States to all EU citizens for EU citizens well-being. Subsidized tuitions
classification as a public good is important because societies do not view a community members
use of a public good as a burden on society.
Article 24(2) provides just as strong of an argument as Article 7(1)(c) does, if not more
so, regarding why student maintenance grants and subsidized tuition are distinguishable. As was
mentioned in footnote 22, Article 24(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC makes it clear that, despite the
fact that Article 24(1) states that all foreign EU nationals are to be treated by the host Member
State equally with its own nationals as long as the foreign EU nationals are residing there on the
basis of the Directive, the host Member State is not obliged to grant school maintenance aid to
foreign EU students unless they can be classified as workers, self-employed persons, retain the
status of a worker or self-employed person, or are a qualified family member of somebody
falling within one of those exceptions.87
Noticeably absent from that article is the European
Council and Parliaments imprimatur that Member States are not obliged to provide foreign EU
students subsidized tuition unless they can be classified as workers, self-employed persons,
87Directive 2004/38/EC, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the Right of Citizens of
the Union and Their Family Members to Move and Reside Freely Within the Territory of the Member States
Amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and Repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC,
73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, art. 24(2), 2004 O.J. (L 158) 77,
112.
8/13/2019 Would Charging Continental Students Higher Tuition than British Students at British Institutions of Higher Education
17/32
Law548CEuropean Union LawHolden Agnew-Pople
17
retain the status of a worker or self-employed person, or are a qualified family member of
somebody falling within one of those exceptions. This absence, then, is another reason to
distinguish student maintenance grants and subsidized tuition.
In summary, there is a cogent argument that Article 24 of Directive 2004/38/EC would
not be infringed if British institutions of higher education, excluding 1612/68-qualified persons,
only subsidized tuition for British nationals. This argument goes as follows: because i) there is
no meaningful difference between a fee subsidy and a student maintenance grant, ii) the
European Court of Justice has held that Member States may base the reception of a student
maintenance grant on the ability to satisfy a residency requirement, and iii) theForsterCourt in
particular held that the ability to satisfy a five-year residency requirement in order to receive a
student maintenance grant from the host Member State is legitimate, it necessarily follows that
iv) British institutions of higher education may justify only subsidizing tuition for British
nationals on the ground that foreign EU nationals, for the most part, will not satisfy a five-year
residency requirement. However, Articles 7(1)(c) and 24(2) provide reasons to distinguish
student maintenance grants from subsidized tuition. Article 7(1)(c) allows a Member State to
deny a foreign EU student a right of residence if he cannot demonstrate that he has both adequate
health insurance there and sufficient pecuniary resources to avoid burdening its social assistance
system, and access to subsidized tuition arguably does not constitute recourse to a Member
States social assistance system, whereas access to a school maintenance grant would because i)
receiving a school maintenance grant constitutesper sesocial assistance, unlike receiving a
tuition subsidy, and ii) a school maintenance grant is not a public good, whereas subsidized
tuition is. Article 24(2) explicitly allows a Member State to not grant school maintenance aid to
8/13/2019 Would Charging Continental Students Higher Tuition than British Students at British Institutions of Higher Education
18/32
Law548CEuropean Union LawHolden Agnew-Pople
18
foreign EU students who are not 1612/68-qualified persons, but it does not do the same for
subsidized tuition.
Part B: If Article 24 of Directive 2004/38/EC Would Be Infringed If British Institutions ofHigher Education Based Tuition on How Long One Has Lived in the United Kingdom, Could
Not Subsidizing Tuition for Foreign EU Nationals Be Justified on the Ground of Public Policy
Under Article 27?
Whether Article 24 of Directive 2004/38/EC would be infringed if British institutions of
higher education subsidized tuition for British nationals and 1612/68-qualified persons, but not
the tuition paid by foreign EU students is ambiguous. Even if the European Court of Justice were
to decide that that it would infringe Article 24, however, this would not necessarily preclude
British institutions of higher education from doing just that. Pursuant to Article 27(1) of
Directive 2004/38/EC, a Member State may disregard foreign EU nationalsArticle 24 freedom-
of-movement rights under certain circumstances: Member States may restrict the freedom of
movement and residence of Union citizens and their family members, irrespective of nationality,
on the grounds of public policy, public security or public health.88
These grounds, however,
Article 27(1) continues, shall not be invoked to serve economic ends.89
Additionally, pursuant
to Article 27(2), for one of Article 27(1)s exceptions to be applicable, i) the restriction imposed
by the host Member State must comply with the principle of proportionality, ii) the restriction
must be based on the personal conduct of the person concerned, and iii) the personal conduct of
88Directive 2004/38/EC, of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the Right of Citizens of
the Union and Their Family Members to Move and Reside Freely Within the Territory of the Member States
Amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and Repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC,
73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, art. 27(1), 2004 O.J. (L 158) 77,
113.89Id.
8/13/2019 Would Charging Continental Students Higher Tuition than British Students at British Institutions of Higher Education
19/32
Law548CEuropean Union LawHolden Agnew-Pople
19
the person on whom the restriction is being imposed must represent a genuine, present and
sufficiently serious threat affecting one of the fundamental interests of society.90
An apt case issued by the European Court of Justice regarding the public policy exception
to the principle of equal treatment is Van Duyn v. Home Office. The genesis of this case was the
British governments refusal to grant leave to a Dutch woman to enter the United Kingdom to
work as a secretary for an English branch of the Church of Scientology.91
The British
government based its decision on the fact that it viewed the Church of Scientology as a socially
harmful organization.92
Because Article 3 of Directive No 64/221/EEC, the precursor to Article
27 of Directive 2004/38/EC, mandated, as Article 27 of Directive 2004/38/EC now does, that a
Member States invocation of the public policy exception to the principle of equal treatment be
based exclusively on the affected persons personal conduct, the Court had to determine
whether association with a body or an organization can in itself constitute personal conduct
within the meaning of Article 3 of Directive No 64/221.93
The Court answered this question
affirmatively, having stated that present association does constitute personal conduct.94
After concluding that present association constitutes personal conduct, the Court had to
determine whether present association with a legal body or organization could be used to invoke
Article 3.95
It held that present association with a legal body or organization, such as the Church
of Scientology, could be used by a Member State to invoke the concept of public policy within
Article 3 if it considers the body or organizations activities to be contrary to the public good.96
90Id.at art. 27(2), 114.
91Case 41-74, Van Duyn v. Home Office, 1974 E.C.R. 01337, para 2.
92Id.at para 3.
93Id.at paras 16-17.
94Id.at para 17.
95Id.at para 18.
96Id.at paras 18-19
8/13/2019 Would Charging Continental Students Higher Tuition than British Students at British Institutions of Higher Education
20/32
8/13/2019 Would Charging Continental Students Higher Tuition than British Students at British Institutions of Higher Education
21/32
Law548CEuropean Union LawHolden Agnew-Pople
21
foreign EU nationals with British institutions of higher education may constitute a legitimate
reason under the public policy exception to the principle of equal treatment to disallow the
subsidization of their educations within the United Kingdom. First, Van Duynwas an action
initiated under Directive No 64/221/EEC, one of the precursors to Directive No 2004/38/EC.
Therefore, it demonstrates how Article 27 of Directive No 2004/38/EC is to be interpreted and
applied. Second, if the Church of Scientologys activities were contrary to the public good in the
United Kingdom, surely the activities of the United Kingdoms institutions of higher education
could be deemed contrary to the public good.
In the United Kingdom today, as is the case elsewhere in the West, having access to
postsecondary educational institutions is a virtual necessity for success. The reasons are
plentiful: low-skilled jobs are difficult to come across, as many such jobs have been offshored to
third-world countries; competition for jobs in all sectors is a lot more competitive than it was
during any other point in history as a result of globalization; and jobs these days are a lot more
sophisticated than they used to be, requiring more education to perform them. Sadly, then, when
having a postsecondary education is more important than ever before, it is becoming increasingly
inaccessible to a great number of young Britons. Average tuition at British universities is now
above 8,500.103
That is about three times as high as tuition was during the 2011/12 academic
year.104
That foreign EU students studying within the United Kingdom are a cause of these
drastic tuition hikes cannot be doubted. The most basic understanding of economics informs one
that when over 132,550 foreign EU nationals, 5.31 per cent of the university-student population
103Tuition Fees in 2013 Will Rise To 8.500 On Average,supranote 10.
104D. D. Guttenplan, supra note 8.
8/13/2019 Would Charging Continental Students Higher Tuition than British Students at British Institutions of Higher Education
22/32
Law548CEuropean Union LawHolden Agnew-Pople
22
in the country,105
have their educations subsidized by the British government, tuition is going to
go up drastically.
The effects of skyrocketing tuition in the United Kingdom are very conspicuous. Within a
period of merely one year, 54,000 fewer Britons enrolled at a British university.106
That is an
astounding 6.6 per cent decline from the prior academic year.107
It is important to note that it is unfeasible for most young Britons to avail themselves of
Directive No 2004/38/EC to get a subsidized education in another Member State. Unlike their
counterparts in other Member States, knowledge of foreign languages is not something for which
the British are known: most Britons solely speak English.108
By contrast, it is unclear from Van Duyenhow the Church of Scientologys activities
within the United Kingdom are contrary to the public good. Whatever its undesired activities are,
it is inconceivable that they are more contrary to the common good in the United Kingdom than
the aforementioned practices by British universities.
Having established that the current activities of British universities are contrary to the
common goodmaking access to postsecondary education for many Britons inaccessible by
subsidizing foreign EU nationals educationsit arguably follows from Van Duyenthat the
British government may invoke the public policy exception to the principle of equal treatment.
Rather than to outright deny them leave to enter the United Kingdom, as occurred in Van Duyen,
however, it would be enough to deny them the tuition subsidization that British citizens receive.
105StatisticsStudents and Qualifiers at UK HE Institutions ,supranote 6.
106D. D. Guttenplan, supranote 8.
107Id.
108See David Thomas, Why Do the English Need to Speak a Foreign Language when Foreigners Speak English?
(Jan. 23, 2012, 1:01 PM), http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2090595/Why-English-need-speak-foreign-
language-foreigners-speak-English.html.
8/13/2019 Would Charging Continental Students Higher Tuition than British Students at British Institutions of Higher Education
23/32
Law548CEuropean Union LawHolden Agnew-Pople
23
Such conduct would not run afoul of the principle of proportionality. Even a partial subsidy of
foreign EU citizens educations by British universities would push up tuition for Britons and,
consequently, negatively affect their ability to attend university.
One important way in which the issue at hand and the issue that was present in Van
Duyenare distinguishable, however, is that the issue in the latter was noneconomic in nature,
whereas the former is economic in nature. This is important, because Article 27(1) of Directive
No 2004/38/EC states unequivocally that restriction of the freedom of movement of EU citizens
on the ground of public policy shall not beinvoked to serve economic ends.109
Despite this
phrase, there are opinions that the European Court of Justice has issued that imply that it is rather
inoperative. These cases areKohlland Campus Oil.
In Campus Oil, at issue was an Irish law that requires importers of petroleum products to
purchase a certain portion of their petroleum requirements from a state-owned company that
operates a refinery in the country.110
The prices of the petroleum products that the importers are
required to buy from the state-owned company are set by the government.111
In response to the
aforementioned law, six Irish businesses that trade petroleum products sought a declaration that
the law infringed EU laws general prohibition on impediments to the free movement of goods
within the EU.112
The Irish government countered that, as a matter of public security, the law
was necessary.113
First, it explained that the state-owned petroleum refining company was
109Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the Right of Citizens of
the Union and Their Family Members to Move and Reside Freely Within the Territory of the Member States
Amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and Repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC,
73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC, art. 27(1), 2004 O.J. (L 158) 77,
113.110
Case 72/83, Campus Oil Ltd. v. Minister for Indus. & Energy, 1984 E.C.R. 02727, para 1.111
Id.112
Id.at para 2.113
See id.at paras 5-6.
8/13/2019 Would Charging Continental Students Higher Tuition than British Students at British Institutions of Higher Education
24/32
Law548CEuropean Union LawHolden Agnew-Pople
24
necessary to prevent the country the country from becoming completely dependent on foreign
petroleum products.114
Second, it explained that the law at issue is meant to ensure that the state-
owned petroleum refinery remains solvent.115
Despite its acknowledgment that derogation from the prohibition of barriers to trade
within the EU on the ground of public security must be non-economic in nature,116
the European
Court of Justice held that a Member State that is very dependent on imports for its supply of
petroleum products may rely on the ground of public security to require importers of petroleum
products to purchase a certain portion of their petroleum requirements at government-fixed
prices from a company that operates a refinery in the Member State if it is necessary to keep the
company solvent.117
According to the Court, a Member States aim of always ensuring a
minimum supply of petroleum products transcend[s] purely economic considerations and [is]
thus capable of constituting an objective covered by the concept of public security.118
This is
because, the Court reasoned, petroleum products are essential for a countrys existence, because
its economy, institutions, essential public services, and the survival of its inhabitants depend
upon them.119
Continued the Court, these resultant dangers are consequently public security
matters.120
InKohll, at issue was a Luxembourgian law that prohibited one, except in the case of
emergency treatment received as a result of an illness or accident abroad, from receiving
insurance coverage for medical treatment abroad without first obtaining prior authorization from
114Id.at para 5.
115Id.at para 6.
116Id.at para 35.
117Id.at para 51.
118Id.at para 35.
119Id.at para 34.
120Id.
8/13/2019 Would Charging Continental Students Higher Tuition than British Students at British Institutions of Higher Education
25/32
Law548CEuropean Union LawHolden Agnew-Pople
25
the competent social security institution.121
Such authorization was only granted if it was found
that the treatment that was sought would have been impossible to receive in Luxembourg.122
The
law was challenged by Mr. Kohll after social security medical advisors rejected his request that
his daughter be permitted to receive coverage for orthodontist treatment in Germany.123
The
rejection issued by the social security medical advisors was based on the ground that his
daughters treatment was not urgent and could be provided in Luxembourg.124
Mr. Kohlls
challenge was predicated on the freedom-to-provide-services principle.125
The European Court of Justice held that the law at issue infringed on the right to provide
services because it deterred insured persons from receiving medical services from providers in
other Member States.126
After it reached that conclusion, it went on to determine whether tjis
infringement could be justified.127
The Luxembourgian government argued that the law was
justified on the ground that it was necessary to guard against the risk of the financial balance of
the social security schemes being unable to provide medical and hospital service to all of its
citizens.128
The Court began its analysis of whether the law constituted a justified derogation from
the freedom-to-provide-services principle by stating that an aim that is purely economic cannot
justify a barrier to the principle of freedom to provide services.129
It then stated that the risk of
the financial balance of a Member States social security system being undermined may
121Case C-158/96,Kohll v. Union des caisses de maladie, 1998 E.C.R. I-01931, para 6.122
Id.at para 7.123
Id.at paras 2-3.124
Id.at para 3.125
Id.at para 5.126
Id.at para 35.127
Id.at para 36.128
Id.at para 38.129
Id.at para 41.
8/13/2019 Would Charging Continental Students Higher Tuition than British Students at British Institutions of Higher Education
26/32
Law548CEuropean Union LawHolden Agnew-Pople
26
constitute an overriding reason in the general interest that is capable of justifying a barrier that
is of an economic nature.130
Specifically, it stated that a Member States objective of maintaining
a balanced medical and hospital service that all Luxembourgians are able to enjoy may be able to
constitute a valid derogation from the principle of freedom to provide services on the ground of
public health.131
In the case at issue, however, the Court held that the derogation from the
principle of freedom to provide services on the ground of public health could not be justified, as
the Luxembourgian government was unable to demonstrate that the law at issue was necessary to
maintain a balanced medical and hospital service accessible to all Luxembourgians.132
It appears, then, that the language of Article 27 that states that a Member States
restriction of the freedom of movement of EU citizens on the ground of public policy shall not
be invoked to serve economic ends would not precludeBritish institutions of higher education
from subsidizing British nationals and 1612/68-qualified persons tuition but not other EU
nationals tuitionin order to safeguard Britons access to postsecondary education. This is
because the rationale the European Court of Justice applied in Campus OilandKohllis
applicable to the issue at hand. Applying Campus Oils rationale, because the Court held in that
case that Irelands having adequate petroleum products is essential for the countrys existence,
causing its scheme that requires importers of petroleum products to purchase a certain portion of
their petroleum requirements from a state-owned company in the country at prices fixed by the
government to ensure sufficient petroleum products in the country to transcend[ ] purely
economic considerations, there is a strong argument that a scheme by the British government to
disallow British institutions of higher education to subsidize foreign EU nationals tuitionin
130Id.
131Id.at para 50.
132Id.at para 52.
8/13/2019 Would Charging Continental Students Higher Tuition than British Students at British Institutions of Higher Education
27/32
8/13/2019 Would Charging Continental Students Higher Tuition than British Students at British Institutions of Higher Education
28/32
Law548CEuropean Union LawHolden Agnew-Pople
28
freedom to move and reside freely within the EU. Therefore, the scope of the phrase in Campus
OilandKohllis almost certain to be the same as it is under Article 27(1). Third, if the phrase
were to have a different scope under Article 27(1) than it had in Campus OilandKohll, it would
arguably be less restrictive under Article 27(1). The freedom to move and reside freely within the
EU is a lot more recent than the freedom to freely move goods within the EU and the freedom to
provide and receive services within the EU.133
Therefore, it is seems inconceivable that the
phrase that the grounds of public policy, public security, or public health shall not be invoked to
serve economic endsin a directive that applies to the freedom to move and reside within the EU
would be broader than the same phrase as it applies to the freedom to freely move goods within
the EU and the freedom provide and receive services within the EU.
While the issue at hands economic nature is likely unproblematic, there is a different
aspect of it that may be problematic. Unlike in Van Duyen, where the Church of Scientology was
viewed by the British government asper sesocially harmful, when it comes the British
institutions of higher education, they are notper sesocially harmful. To the contrary, they
provide people with the education necessary to succeed in the contemporary marketplace.
Rather, the only socially harmful activity they engage in, as it relates to British nationals, is
subsidizing the tuition of foreign EU nationals. What is more, the reason they engage in this
activity is because of they are supposedly required to do so under Directive 2004/38/EC. This is
a large difference between the facts that were present in Van Duyenand the facts concerning the
issue at hand.
The aforementioned difference between Van Duyenand the issue at hand arguably does
not cause an insurmountable problem. This is because the difference is arguably not an important
133SeeJohns,supranote 14, at 245.
8/13/2019 Would Charging Continental Students Higher Tuition than British Students at British Institutions of Higher Education
29/32
Law548CEuropean Union LawHolden Agnew-Pople
29
one. First, just because a body or organization is notper se socially harmful to society does not
indicate that it does not engage in at least some activities considered to be contrary to the
common good, which is all Van Duyenrequires for the concept of public policy within Article 27
to be invoked.134
As was explained, although they are notper sesocially harmful, British
institutions of higher education do engage in activities that are harmful to society in that they
subsidize foreign EU nationals educations. Second, just because British institutionsof higher
education believe they are, and might be, acting pursuant to Directive 2004/38/EC when they
subsidize foreign EU nationals educations does not preclude this activity from beingable to be
classified as socially harmful. Even though segregation was engaged in by state entities during
the Jim Crow pursuant to state and local law in the Deep South, virtually nobody would claim
that segregation was not socially harmful. Although, unlike the segregation laws in the Deep
South during the Jim Crow era, the intention of the EU institutions that implemented Directive
2004/38/EC were goodto facilitate integration between the peoples and Member States within
the EUits effects are contributing to an educational disaster within the United Kingdom. Third,
the holding in Van Duyenemphasized that because the particular circumstances that justify
recourse to the concept of public policy are different in each Member State, Member States are
to be given discretion when determining what activities are contrary to the public good.135
The
word discretion implies that, despite the fact that British institutions of education are notper se
socially harmful and despite the fact their socially harmful activities appear to be done under the
aegis of Directive 2004/38/EC, the European Court of Justice would be at least somewhat
reluctant to challenge the British government if it were to formally state that British institutions
of higher education engage in socially harmful activities in that they make access to higher
134Van Duyen, at paras 18-19.
135Van Duyen, at para 18.
8/13/2019 Would Charging Continental Students Higher Tuition than British Students at British Institutions of Higher Education
30/32
Law548CEuropean Union LawHolden Agnew-Pople
30
education inaccessible for many young Britons by subsidizing foreign EU citizens educations,
causing tuition to exponentially rise.
In summary, if the government of the United Kingdom were to decide that it no longer
wishes to subsidize the tuition of foreign EU nationals educations within the United Kingdom
and the European Court of Justice were to hold that not doing so would infringe on the latters
right to be treated equally with British nationals under Article 24 of Directive 2004/38/EC, it
may still be able to end state subsidization of foreign EU nationals educations at British
institutions of higher education by invoking Article 27 of Directive 2004/38/EC. Article 27
allows a Member State to infringe foreign EU nationals Article 24 right to equal treatment with
nationals of the host Member State under the concept of public policy, which can be invoked by
a foreign EU national being associated with a body or organization that engages in activities that
are socially harmful. The British government may be able to successfully argue, then, that
foreign EU nationals studying at British institutions of higher education, excepting 1612/68-
qualified persons, may be subjected to differential treatment than British nationals regarding
tuition subsidization because i) they are associated with British institutions of higher education
and ii) these institutionsby causing tuition to go up by subsidizing foreign EU nationals
educations and, therefore, making higher education inaccessible for many young Britons
arguably are engaging in an activity that is socially harmful to British society. If Campus Oiland
Kohllare applicable, the fact that the problem the British government would be addressing is
primarily economic in nature would not be problematic despite the phrase in Article 27 that
states that the concept of public policy shall not be invoked to serve economic ends, but
whether these cases apply is not certain. More problematic is the fact that British institutions of
higher education are notper sesocially harmful and the activities that they engage in that may be
8/13/2019 Would Charging Continental Students Higher Tuition than British Students at British Institutions of Higher Education
31/32
Law548CEuropean Union LawHolden Agnew-Pople
31
construed as socially harmful appear to be under the aegis of Directive 2004/38/EC,
distinguishing their activities with those of the Church of Scientology in Van Duyen. There
appear to be strong arguments, however, as to why these differences between the socially
harmful activities of British institutions of higher education and the socially harmful activities of
the Church of Scientology in Van Duyenshould not matter.
III. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, despite the contrary belief of Member States and EU institutions of higher
education, British institutions of higher education may, excepting 1612/68-qualified persons, be
able to deny tuition subsidies to foreign EU nationals without violating EU law. There are two
possible ways they may be able to do so. First, there is a strong argument that, in light of recent
opinions issued by the European Court of Justice regarding the scope of the principle of equal
treatment, Article 24 of Directive 2004/38/EC would not be infringed if British institutions of
higher education based tuition on how long one has lived in the United Kingdom. Whether this
argument would be successful would depend on whether the Court accepts the argument that a
school maintenance grant and subsidized tuition are not meaningfully different from one another
and how much emphasis it places on the fact that Article 24(2) of Directive 2004/38/EC
specifically exempts EU institutions of higher education from having to provide foreign EU
nationals with school maintenance aid, but is silent on whether EU institutions of higher
education have to provide foreign EU nationals with subsidized tuition. Second, there is a strong
argument that even if Article 24 of Directive 2004/38/EC would be infringed if British
institutions of higher education based tuition on how long one has lived in the United Kingdom,
these institutions could nonetheless not provide foreign EU nationals with subsidized tuition by
invoking the ground of public policy under Article 27 of Directive 2004/38/EC. Whether this
8/13/2019 Would Charging Continental Students Higher Tuition than British Students at British Institutions of Higher Education
32/32
Law548CEuropean Union LawHolden Agnew-Pople
argument would be successful would depend on whether the Court viewed this issue as one that
transcends purely economic considerations and is capable of constituting an objective covered by
the public policy exception and whether it matters that British institutions of higher education are
notper se socially harmful and the socially harmful activities they engage in appear to be under
the aegis of Directive 2004/38/EC.
The British government ought to further inquire into whether it is able to, excepting
1612/68-qualified persons, end the tuition subsidies it currently provides to numerous foreign EU
nationals each year. Subsidizing the tuition of foreign EU nationals is done at the expense of
young Britons, who are increasingly unable to receive a postsecondary education, and, as a result
of the advent of globalization, not having a postsecondary education negatively affects ones life
in a profound manner.