C-9/74

on the interpretation of the first paragraph of Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/­ 68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 (OJ 1968, L 257, p. 2),

THE COURT

composed of: R. Lecourt, President, A. M. Donner (Rapporteur) and M. Sørensen, Presidents of Chambers, R. Monaco, J. Mertens de Wilmars, P. Pescatore, H. Kutscher, C. Ó Dálaigh and A. J. Mackenzie Stuart, Judges,

Advocate-General: J. P. Warner Registrar: A. Van Houtte

gives the following

JUDGMENT

(Bavarian law on educational grants) a 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October child who attends the fifth to tenth 1968 on freedom of movement for forms of a secondary school and who workers within the Community (OJ does not have sufficient means is entitled 1968, L 257, p. 2)'. to receive an 'inducational grant' amoun The Staatsanwaltschaft (Public Prosecu ting to DM 70 per month. tor's Office) of the Bayerisches The plaintiff in the main action claimed Verwaltungsgericht, the plaintiff in the this sum from the City of Munich, the main action, the Government of the defendant in the main action, for the Italian Republic, represented by its appropriate period he attended school. Ambassador Adolfo Maresca, acting as The defendant in the main action agent, assisted by Giorgio Zagari, on refused the plaintiff the educational behalf of the Avvocato generale dello Stato, and the Commission of the grant by reference to Article 3 BayAföG, under which educational grants are European Communities, represented by payable solely to the following classes of its Legal Adviser Peter Karpenstein, submitted their written observations in persons:

3. Aliens who permanently reside in under Article 20 of the Bavarian territory and who are recognized as enjoying the right of Statute of the Court of asylum under Article 28 of the Aliens Justice of the Euro Law of 28 April 1965 (BGBl. I, p. pean Economic Com 353), as last amended by the Law of munity 23 June 1970 (BGBl. I, p. 805). 1. The Staatsanwaltschaft of the The plaintiff sought a declaration from Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht Munich the Bayerisches Verwaltungsgericht that considers that in its capacity as the Bavarian law was void, whereupon representing the public interest it is that court, by order of 14 December entitled to submit an opinion on an 1973, registered on 11 February 1974, application for a preliminary ruling stayed the proceedings and referred to submitted by the Verwaltungsgericht.

JUDGMENT OF 3. 7. 1974 — CASE 9/74

Since 4. The Commission observes that the individual educational grants come preliminary question from the Verwal under the sphere of educational policy, tungsgericht must be understood in the no such direct relationship can be shown following sense: in this case. The interpretation of Article (a) Does Article 12 of Regulation No 12 of Regulation No 1612/68 approved 1612/68 contain a prohibition on by the Verwaltungsgericht is therefore discrimination? not justified. (b) Should this prohibition — limited to

that the admission to classes cannot EEC Treaty does not apply in this case, mean the theoretical possibility of being because this provision of a general admitted to the course, but must above nature is displaced by the specific all mean the material possibility of provisions of Articles 48 and 49 of the exercising this right. It follows that the Treaty and to the rules of secondary law Member States cannot refuse children of based on Article 49 of the Treaty. Article migrant workers the grants and subsidies 7 of Regulation No 1612/68 is not which they consider proper for their relevant either. The prohibition on own nationals. discrimination contained in this provision relates only to employment

CASAGRANDE v LANDESHAUPTSTADT MÜNCHEN

courses 'under the same conditions as country with regard to the social the nationals of that (host) State, if such rehabilitation of the handicapped. In children are residing in its territory'. view of the clear guidance from the case Both the wording of Article 12 and its law of the Court in the matter, there is position in Regulation No 1612/68 leads no doubt that 'admission to general to the conclusion that this provision educational courses' must be understood involves a prohibition on discrimination in a broad sense, involving the equal which has a direct effect in the domestic treatment of children of migrant workers legal order of Member States. as regards the financial conditions provided for in the legal system of the On the question of whether the admission to educational courses under host States for attendance at general educational courses. the same conditions as nationals of the host Member State covers measures relating to educational grants, the Commission refers to the case law of the III — Oral procedure Court in its judgments of 13 October 1969 in Case 15/69 (Ugliola), Rec. 1969, 363, of 13 December 1972 in Case 44/72 At the hearing on 7 May 1974 the plaintiff in the main action, the (Marsman), Rec. 1972, 1243 and of 11 Staatsanwaltschaft of the Bayerisches April 1973 in Case 76/72 (Michael S.) Verwaltungsgericht, the City of Munich [1973] ECR 457. According to this case law the Community rules in social and the Commission of the European Communities put forward their oral matters are based on the principle that observations. the law of each Member State must ensure for nationals of other Member The plaintiff in the main action was States, employed in its territory, all the represented by Mr Del Vecchio, the advantages which it accords its own Staatsanwaltschaft of the Bayerisches nationals. In the case of Michel S. the Verwaltungsgericht by Dr Walter, the Court, referring to the fifth recital of City of Munich by Mr Goltz and the Regulation No 1612/68, considered Commission by Dr Karpenstein. Article 12 applicable to the benefits The Advocate-General delivered his provided for by the law of the host opinion on 11 June 1974.

4 Although under the procedure of Article 17, the Court cannot pronounce on the interpretation or the validity of legislative provisions of a national character it is however competent to interpret Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68 and to say whether this Article does or does not refer to measures relating to educational grants such as the measure in dispute.

5 Under Article 12 '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', and Member States are required to encourage 'all efforts to enable such children to attend these courses under the best possible conditions'.

6 According to the fifth recital of the Regulation, the latter was issued, inter alia, for the reason 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 coutry'.

7 Such integration presupposes that, in the case of the child of a foreign worker who wishes to have secondary education, this child can 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.

13 Chapters 1 and 2 of Title III of Part Two of the Treaty in particular contain several provisions the application of which could affect this policy.

14 As regards Article 12 of Regulation 1612/68, although the determination of the conditions referred to there is a matter for the authorities competent under national law, they must however be applied without discrimination between the children of national workers and those of workers who are nationals of another Member State who reside in the territory.

JUDGMENT OF 3. 7. 1974 — CASE 9/74

15 Further, since Regulations, under Article 189 of the Treaty, have general application and are binding in their entirety and directly applicable in all Member States, it is irrelevant that the conditions in question are laid down by rules issued by the central power, by the authorities of a country forming part of a Federal State or of other territorial entities, or even by authorities which the national law equates with them.

Costs

16 The costs incurred by the Commission of the European Communities, which has submitted observations to the Court, are not recoverable, and as these proceedings are, in so far as the parties to the main action are concerned, a step in the action before the national court, costs are a matter for that court.

Delivered in open court in Luxembourg on 3 July 1974.

A. Van Houtte R. Lecourt

Registrar President