JUDGMENT OF 29. 1. 1975 — CASE 68/74 ALAIMO v PREFET DU RHONE

In Case 68/74 Reference to the Court under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty by the Tribunal Administratif, Lyon, for a preliminary ruling in the action pending before that court between

THE COURT composed of: R. Lecourt, President, J. Mertens de Wilmars and Lord Mackenzie Stuart, Presidents of Chambers, A. M. Donner (Rapporteur), R. Monaco, P. Pescatore, H. Kutscher, M. Sørensen and A. O Keeffe, Judges, Advocate-General: J.-P. Warner Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

JUDGMENT

Issues of fact and of law

I — Facts and written procedure

II — Observations submitted under Article 20 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Economic Community

III — Oral Procedure

Grounds of judgment

Costs

I —. Facts and written procedure

II —. Observations submitted under Article 20 of the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Economic Community

1. Mr Alaimo claims that in France the inadmissibility of children of foreign nationals to educational establishments under the same conditions of enrolment as French children must be in accordance with the basic principles of education and human rights applied in French territory. It must be assumed that Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68 adds something to this position in providing that children of a national of any Member State shall be admitted under the same conditions as the nationals of the host State. If such 'conditions did not include financial conditions, there would be serious and intolerable discrimination. Such a restriction could force the persons concerned either to return to their country of origin to pursue their studies or to give up the idea of educational or vocational training for lack of financial aid which their parents are not able to give them. It follows from the prohibition on discrimination in the Treaty and the principle of equality of nationals of the various nationalities within the Community that their children must be placed on a equal footing in regard to all the rights flowing from their admission to educational courses.

2. The Préfet du Rhône observes that he maintains what he says in his statement of defence submitted to the Tribunal Administratif, Lyon. He observes further that it was only as from the 1973-1974 school year that State educational grants were extended to foreign pupils resident in France and enrolled in general secondary educational establishments and at the same time the Conseil Général du Rhône decided on 17 December 1973 that foreign children fulfilling the same conditions could likwise claim grants from the department.

3. The Italian Government observes that the interpretation of Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 with which the present case is concerned has been settled by the Court in its judgment of 3 July 1974 in Case 9/74 Donato Casagrande v Landeshauptstadt München [1974] ECR 773. In that judgment the Court ruled that Article 12 of the aforementioned regulation refers not only to rules relating to admission but also to general measures intended to facilitate educational attendance. In view of that decision it would be superfluous to pursue this question further.

4. The Commission observes that the interpretation of Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68 of the Council raises two questions:

III —. Oral Procedure

1. By judgment dated 5 September 1974, received at the Court on 16 September 1974, the Tribunal Administratif, Lyon, referred for a preliminary ruling under Article 177 of the EEC Treaty a question on the interpretation of Article 12 of Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community (OJ Special Edition 1968 (II), p. 475).

2. It appears from the file that the plaintiff in the main action requested the annulment of a decision of the Préfet du Rhône refusing an educational grant from the department for his daughter on the ground that The Conseil Général du Rhône … has decided to restrict its financial aid solely to puplis of French nationality.

3. Since the above-mentioned Article 12 lays down that The children of a national of a Member State who is or has been employed in the territory of another Member State shall be admitted to that State's general educational, apprenticeship and vocational training courses under the same conditions as the nationals of that State, if such children are residing in its territory, the question is asked whether such equality of treatment is limited to the conditions of enrolment in courses or extends to all the rights arising from admission to such educational courses.

4. Regulation No 1612/68, according to the fifth recital of its preamble, was adopted in particular on the ground that the right of freedom of movement, in order that it may be exercised, by objective standards, in freedom and dignity, requires … that obstacles to the mobility of workers shall be eliminated, in particular as regards the worker's right to be joined by his family and the conditions for the integration of that family into the host country.

5. It follows from the judgment of the Court of 3 July 1974 in Case 9/74, Donato Casagrande v Landeshauptstadt München [1974] ECR 773 that such integration presupposes that, in the case of the child of a foreign worker who wishes to be admitted to an educational course, that child may take advantage of benefits provided by the laws of the host country relating to educational grants, under the same conditions as nationals who are in a similar position.

6. In that case it was therefore ruled that Article 12 refers not only to rules relating to admission, but also to the general measures intended to facilitate educational attendance.

7. The present proceedings relating to a similar case have disclosed no issue of fact or of law of such a nature as to lead to a different interpretation of this provision.

8. It is therefore necessary to reply that Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68 must be interpreted as ensuring for the children referred to an equal position with regard to all the rights arising from such admission.

9. The costs incurred by the Commission of the European Communities, which has submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable.

10. Since these proceedings are, in so far as the parties to the main action are concerned, a step in the action pending before the Tribunal Administratif, Lyon, the decision on costs is a matter for that court.

On those grounds, THE COURT in answer to the question referred to it by the Tribunal Administratif, Lyon, by judgment dated 8 September 1974, hereby rules: