Failing on the social dimension: judicial law-making and student mobility in the EU

ABSTRACT

National welfare states and free movement rights are in tension in the European Union (EU). Yet, despite potential free-riding dynamics, fully developed welfare states appear remarkably resilient. Two explanations can account for this in the literature: institutional heterogeneity of welfare states leads to differential impact of free movement, and contained compliance with EU legal obligations means that non-discrimination provisions exist mainly on paper. By example of higher education and student financial maintenance, we show that under adverse conditions, free movement rights need exceptions to not undermine national welfare. Moreover, the incapacity of the European Court of Justice to provide clear and stringent guidelines in regards to EU students’ access to student benefits, confronts potential beneficiaries with significant legal uncertainty. This introduces new inequalities among EU students. Our analysis shows the limits of judge-made law in furthering social justice.

KEYWORDS:

• European Court of Justice
• student mobility
• welfare state resilience

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and the editors of JEPP. The paper is part of TransJudFare, funded by Norface, WelfareStateFutures (DFG SCHM 2404/1-1). We thank Martin Weinberger for excellent research support, and the participants of the November 2017 workshop in Bremen for their feedback.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors

Angelika Schenk is Doctoral Researcher at the University of Bremen.

Susanne K. Schmidt is Professor at the University of Bremen.

ORCID

Angelika Schenk http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8926-8112

Susanne K. Schmidt http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7931-9935

Notes

1. European Commission (2016).

2. See, e.g., 39/86 Lair and 197/86 Brown [both 1988] and also 389/87, 390/87 Echternach, Moritz [1989]; C-308/89 Di Leo [1990]; C-357/89 Raulin and C-3/90 Bernini [both 1992], C-7/94 Gaal [1995]; C-337/97 Meeusen [1999].

3. Der Standard (2006), ‘Plus 111 Deutsche Studenten‘, 11 February.

4. Interview with expert at University of Louvain-la-Neuve, 12 November 2013; Interview with Flemish Ministry of Education & Training, 27 May 2015 (The Observatory on Borderless Higher Education 2010).

5. Interview with expert at University of Louvain-la-Neuve, 12 November 2013; interview with Legal Service, European Commission, 11 August 2015.

6. Interview with Advocate General at the European Court of Justice, 12 November 2013.

7. Interview with Juriste à la direction générale de l’Enseignement non-obligatoire et de la Recherche scientifique, la Fédération au niveau de Bruxelles, 12 November 2013; interview with Académie de Recherche et d’Enseignement supérieur – ARES, 11 September 2015.

8. Interviews with Legal Service, European Commission, 12 November 2013 & 11 August 2015.

9. Die Presse (2011) Offener Uni-Zugang wackelt, 9 July 2011.

10. Bundesministerium für Wissenschaft, Forschung und Wirtschaft (2014) ‘Beantwortung der schriftlichen parlamentarischen Anfrage Nr. 2721/J betreffend ‘der Zugangsregelungen an Österreichischen Universitäten’ des Abgeordneten Dr. Nikolaus Scherak vom 5. Dezember 2015’.

11. Interviews Department for Study Grants, Flemish Agency for Higher Education (AHOVOKS), 12 August 2015.

12. Interview, Landeshauptstadt München, 19 March 2015.

13. Interviews Studienbeihilfebehörde & BMWFW (Bundesministerium für Wissenschaft, Forschung und Wirtschaft), 08 March 2016.

14. Interviews Studienbeihilfebehörde & BMWFW (Bundesministerium für Wissenschaft, Forschung und Wirtschaft), 08 March 2016.

15. Bundesverwaltungsgericht (26.11.2015) Entscheidung BVwG W129 2008055-2.

16. Verwaltungsgerichtshof (21.12.2016) Ro 2015/10/0012.

17. Interviews Department for Study Grants, Flemish Agency for Higher Education, Adult Education, Qualifications and Study Grants (AHOVOKS), 12 August 2015.

18. Bundesverwaltungsgericht (01.12.2014) Beschluss W128 2009681-1/2E.

19. Österreichische Studienbeihilfenbehörde (2015).

20. Interview with Flemish Ministry of Education & Training, 27 May 2015.

21. Verwaltungsgerichtshof (21.12.2016) Ro 2015/10/0012.

22. Interview with Flemish Ministry of Education & Training, 27 May 2015.

23. This is why, in the world trade regime, the most-favoured nations clause compensates for such inequalities arising from applying the non-discrimination rule. We thank Fritz Scharpf for pointing this out.

Additional information

Funding

The research for this article was part of a Norface-funded project, TransJudFare [grant number 462-13-009].