Provisional text
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber)
1 October 2026 ( * )
[para_4]( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Citizenship of the Union – Articles 18 and 21 TFEU – Principle of non-discrimination – Access to higher education – Enrolment as first-year medical student – Quota capping non-resident students – Candidate for medical studies who completed his secondary education in the Member State concerned while residing in another Member State )
[para_5]In Case C‑131/25,
[para_6]REQUEST for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU from the Conseil d’État (Council of State, Belgium), made by decision of 28 January 2025, received at the Court on 10 February 2025, in the proceedings
Axel Dris
[para_8]v
[para_9]Gouvernement de la Communauté française,
[para_10]THE COURT (Fifth Chamber),
[para_11]composed of M.L. Arastey Sahún, President of the Chamber, J. Passer, E. Regan (Rapporteur), D. Gratsias and B. Smulders, Judges,
[para_12]Advocate General: J. Richard de la Tour,
[para_13]Registrar: R. Şereş, Administrator,
[para_14]having regard to the written procedure and further to the hearing on 14 January 2026,
[para_15]after considering the observations submitted on behalf of:
[para_16]– Axel Dris, by himself,
[para_17]– the Belgian Government, by M. Jacobs, C. Pochet and M. Van Regemorter, acting as Agents, and by M. Nihoul, avocat,
[para_18]– the European Commission, by S. Delaude, M. Konstantinidis, E. Montaguti and H. van Vliet, acting as Agents,
[para_19]after hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 16 April 2026,
[para_20]gives the following
Judgment
[para_22]1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of the first paragraph of Article 18, Article 21(1), Article 165(1) and the second indent of Article 165(2) TFEU, and Article 14(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.
[para_23]2 The request has been made in proceedings between Mr Axel Dris, a Luxembourg national, and the French Community of Belgium (‘the French Community’), concerning the deliberations of the selection board of the entrance and access examination for undergraduate studies in medical and dental sciences (‘the entrance and access examination’) deciding not to issue him the certificate of achievement required for enrolment as a first-year undergraduate student in medical science at a university in the French Community.
Legal context
International law
[para_26]3 The Special Agreement on university cooperation in medical training between the Government of the French Community and the Government of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, signed in Brussels on 17 July 2017 ( Mémorial A 2017, No 733, ‘the Agreement between the Government of the French Community and the Government of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg’), provides, in Article 2:
[para_27]‘Each year, a maximum of 15 students from the University of Luxembourg, with a secondary education diploma awarded by a secondary school in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and meeting the requirements for admission based on academic record to the University of Luxembourg, are eligible to complete the remainder of the undergraduate programme in medical and dental sciences at a university in the French Community.
[para_28]Those students shall be selected by the University of Luxembourg from among those who, in that year only, passed the first year in the grade of “Academic Bachelor in Life Sciences – Medicine stream” and ranked in the qualifying position after the end-of-year examination in which places are awarded in order of merit according to the general average.
[para_29]The operational arrangements for such cooperation shall be established in specific agreements concluded between the University of Luxembourg and the universities of the French Community of Belgium concerned.’
European Union law
The FEU Treaty
4 The first paragraph of Article 18 TFEU provides:
[para_33]‘Within the scope of application of the Treaties, and without prejudice to any special provisions contained therein, any discrimination on grounds of nationality shall be prohibited.’
5 Article 21(1) TFEU provides:
[para_35]‘Every citizen of the Union shall have the right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States, subject to the limitations and conditions laid down in the Treaties and by the measures adopted to give them effect.’
Belgian law
The Decree of 16 June 2006
[para_38]6 Article 1 of the décret de la Communauté française régulant le nombre d’étudiants dans certains cursus de premier cycle de l’enseignement supérieur (Decree of the French Community regulating the number of students in certain undergraduate higher education courses) of 16 June 2006 ( Moniteur belge of 6 July 2006, p. 34055), in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings (‘the Decree of 16 June 2006’), provides:
[para_39]‘A resident student within the meaning of the present decree shall be understood as meaning a student who, at the time of his or her enrolment in an institution of higher education, provides proof that his or her main residence is in Belgium and that he or she fulfils one of the following conditions:
1° he or she has the right to remain permanently in Belgium;
[para_41]2° he or she has had his or her main residence in Belgium for at least 15 months prior to his or her enrolment in an institution of higher education, at the same time carrying on a remunerated or unremunerated professional activity or benefiting from a replacement income granted by a Belgian public service;
[para_42]…
[para_43]7° he or she has had his or her main residence in Belgium for at least three years at the time of his or her enrolment in an institution of higher education;
[para_44]…
[para_45]The “right to remain permanently” within the meaning of paragraph 1, 1°, shall mean, for citizens of another Member State of the European Union, the right recognised by virtue of Articles 16 and 17 of [Directive 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 (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77 and Corrigendum OJ 2005 L 197, p. 34) …’
The Decree of 29 March 2017
[para_47]7 Article 1 of the décret de la Communauté française relatif aux études de sciences médicales et dentaires (Decree of the French Community on studies in medical and dental sciences) of 29 March 2017 ( Moniteur belge of 14 April 2017, p. 51063), in the version applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings (‘the Decree of 29 March 2017’), provides, in paragraph 1:
[para_48]‘Only students who satisfy the general conditions for access to the undergraduate studies referred to in Article 107 of the décret définissant le paysage de l’enseignement supérieur et l’organisation académique des études [(Decree defining the higher education landscape and the academic organisation of studies)] of 7 November 2013 [( Moniteur belge of 18 December 2013, p. 99347)] and who hold a certificate of achievement issued following an entrance and access examination for undergraduate studies in medical and/or dental sciences, hereinafter referred to as “entrance and access examination”, shall have access to undergraduate studies in medical and dental sciences for the purpose of obtaining the relevant degree.’
8 Under Article 6 of that decree:
[para_50]Ԥ 1. At the latest within 3 days of the deliberations, the Chairman of the selection board of the entrance and access examination shall inform the candidates of the results of the examination through the [Academy for Research and Higher Education (ARES)] and shall send the list of the successful candidates to the university institutions authorised to organise and organising undergraduate studies in medical and/or dental sciences.
[para_51]At the latest within ten days of the organisation of the examination, the selection board of the entrance and access examination shall issue, via ARES, to successful candidates a certificate of achievement in the entrance and access examination. Without prejudice to the other conditions of access, students holding that certificate shall be enrolled at the university identified at the time of their registration for the examination in accordance with Article 1, § 3.
[para_52]That certificate of achievement in the examination shall be valid for enrolment only for the following academic year. It shall be personal and non-transferable. In the event of force majeure, when duly assessed by the selection board of the entrance and access examination, that certificate may be validated for the following two academic years.
[para_53]§ 2. In its deliberations, the selection board of the entrance and access examination shall apply the following provision: per stream, there shall be established a number T equal to the total number of candidates who have passed the entrance and access examination referred to in Article 1 and a number NR per stream equal to the number of candidates who have passed the entrance and access examination and who are not considered to be resident students within the meaning of Article 1 of the Decree of 16 June 2006 …
[para_54]Where the ratio between that number NR and the number T exceeds 30%, the selection board of the entrance and access examination shall rank the candidates who have passed the entrance examination who cannot be regarded as resident students in order to designate those to whom a certificate of achievement will be issued. The selection board shall rank those candidates in descending order of the overall marks obtained by each of the candidates in the entrance and access examination. It shall grant certificates of achievement to the candidates who have passed the entrance examination ranked in descending order until the proportion of candidates who cannot be regarded as resident students corresponds to 30% of the total number of successful candidates.
[para_55]At the end of that procedure, a number L shall be established per stream equal to the number of students holding a certificate of achievement in the examination.’
9 According to Article 17 bis of that decree:
[para_57]‘Articles 1 to 7 of the present decree shall not apply to students who, pursuant to the Agreement [between the Government of the French Community and the Government of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg], are eligible to complete the remainder of the undergraduate programme in medical sciences at a university.’
The dispute in the main proceedings and the question referred for a preliminary ruling
[para_59]10 Mr Dris is a Luxembourg national domiciled in a municipality of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg close to the border with the Kingdom of Belgium. He completed his secondary education in an educational institution in Arlon (Belgium).
[para_60]11 On 5 July 2022, he sat the entrance and access examination in medical and dental sciences referred to Article 1 of the Decree of 29 March 2017, which he passed.
[para_61]12 Since he could not be regarded as a resident student, within the meaning of Article 1 of the Decree of 16 June 2006, Mr Dris was subject to the quota system applicable to non-resident students, pursuant to Article 6, § 2 of the Decree of 29 March 2017 (‘the quota capping non-resident students’), as regards, inter alia, enrolment as a first-year undergraduate student of medical sciences. In view of his results and his ranking among those students, the selection board of the entrance and access examination decided not to issue him the certificate of achievement required for his enrolment at a university in the French Community to begin such studies.
[para_62]13 On 12 September 2022, he brought an action before the Conseil d’État (Council of State, Belgium), which is the referring court, seeking, first, the suspension, as a matter of extreme urgency, of implementation of the decision refusing to issue him the certificate of achievement and, second, annulment of that decision. His application for suspension was dismissed by judgment of 27 September 2022.
[para_63]14 Before that court, Mr Dris submits, in the first place, that, as a Luxembourg national with a diploma of completion of secondary education issued in Belgium, he is subject to unjustified difference in treatment as compared with three categories of students. In his view, he is subject to discrimination (i) compared with Luxembourg nationals holding a diploma of completion of secondary education issued in Luxembourg who, as a result, are eligible to complete the remainder of the undergraduate programme in medical sciences at a university in the French Community; (ii) compared with students holding a diploma of completion of secondary education issued in Belgium who, as they are considered to be resident students, within the meaning of Article 1 of the Decree of 16 June 2006, are not subject to the quota capping non-resident students; and (iii) compared with students holding a diploma of completion of secondary education issued in Luxembourg who, as they are considered to be resident students, within the meaning of Article 1 of the Decree of 16 June 2006, are not subject to that quota either.
[para_64]15 In the second place, Mr Dris submits that Article 1 of the Decree of 16 June 2006, Articles 1, 6 and 17 bis of the Decree of 29 March 2017 and the Decree of 20 December 2017 approving the Agreement between the Government of the French Community and the Government of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg infringe, inter alia, the first paragraph of Article 18 and Article 21(1) TFEU, in that those national provisions do not take account of the situation of cross-border students with regard to the entrance and access examination, particularly in the light of the special scheme for Luxembourg students.
[para_65]16 In that regard, according to Mr Dris, first, his situation is similar to that of a Luxembourg student starting the first year of medicine studies in Luxembourg, since he meets, in that regard, all the conditions of access.
[para_66]17 Second, he claims that he is in a situation comparable to that of students considered to be resident students, within the meaning of the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings, since he has completed his entire school education in Belgium and his primary connections, in particular personal and social ties, are in that Member State.
[para_67]18 While noting that the interest of the applicant in the main proceedings in challenging the special scheme provided for by the agreement referred to in paragraph 15 of the present judgment for students who began their medical studies at the University of Luxembourg is an indirect and hypothetical interest, the referring court considers that it is necessary to ask the Court whether the quota capping non-resident students, in so far as it applies to candidates in a situation such as that of the applicant in the main proceedings, is compatible with EU law, in particular the first paragraph of Article 18 and Article 21(1) TFEU.
[para_68]19 In those circumstances, the Conseil d’État (Council of State) decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following question to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:
[para_69]‘Are the first paragraph of Article 18 and Article 21(1) [TFEU], read in isolation or in conjunction with Article 165(1) and the second indent of Article 165(2) thereof and with Article 14(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, to be interpreted as precluding a system of quotas for “non-resident” students, such as that established by Article 1 of the [Decree of 16 June 2006] and Articles 1, 6 and 17 bis of the [Decree of 29 March 2017], for access to university medical studies with the aim of maintaining a high-quality medical service and guaranteeing the objectives of quality supervision during training and the protection of public health based on the high proportion of non-resident students who leave the territory at the conclusion of their full medical training?’
Consideration of the question referred
[para_71]20 As a preliminary point, it must be borne in mind, in the first place, that questions on the interpretation of EU law referred by a national court in the factual and legislative context which that court is responsible for defining, the accuracy of which is not a matter for the Court to determine, enjoy a presumption of relevance. The Court may refuse to rule on a question referred by a national court only where it is quite obvious that the interpretation of EU law that is sought bears no relation to the actual facts of the main action or its object, where the problem is hypothetical, or where the Court does not have before it the factual or legal material necessary to give a useful answer to the questions submitted to it (see judgments of 13 July 2000, Idéal tourisme , C‑36/99, EU:C:2000:405, paragraph 20, and of 13 November 2025, Oti , C‑525/23, EU:C:2025:877, paragraph 38).
[para_72]21 In the present case, in so far as it relates to Article 17 bis of the Decree of 29 March 2017, the question referred for a preliminary ruling concerns the conditions of access for certain students who began their medical studies at the University of Luxembourg following undergraduate studies in medical sciences at a university in the French Community, governed by the Agreement between the Government of the French Community and the Government of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg.
[para_73]22 As the referring court states, that situation differs from that at issue in the main proceedings, which concerns the conditions for enrolment at a university in the French Community from the first year of undergraduate studies in medical sciences, governed by Article 1 of the Decree of 16 June 2006 and Articles 1 and 6 of the Decree of 29 March 2017.
[para_74]23 Consequently, the question referred for a preliminary ruling is inadmissible, in so far as it concerns the compatibility with EU law of the national provision referred to in paragraph 21 of the present judgment, which is not applicable to the dispute in the main proceedings.
[para_75]24 In the second place, it should be noted that the referring court is hearing an action by which the applicant in the main proceedings challenges the application to his situation of the quota capping non-resident students to candidates, whereas, although he resides in Luxembourg, he completed his school education in Belgium and was issued a diploma of completion of secondary education by a Belgian educational institution.
[para_76]25 In those circumstances, it must be held that, by its question, that referring court asks, in essence, whether the first paragraph of Article 18 and Article 21(1) TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which, as regards enrolment in the first year of medical studies, subjects those candidates who have completed a significant part of their school education in that Member State and have been issued their diploma of completion of secondary education there, while residing in another Member State, to a quota applicable to non-resident students.
[para_77]26 In that regard, it should be noted that, in the case which gave rise to the judgment of 13 April 2010, Bressol and Others (C‑73/08, ‘the judgment in Bressol and Others ’, EU:C:2010:181), the Court has already had to rule on the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings, in a version previously in force, which concerned, inter alia, various medical and paramedical degrees other than the medical studies at issue in the present case.
[para_78]27 In that judgment and in its subsequent case-law, the Court recalled that, although the Member States are competent, under Article 165(1) TFEU, as regards the content of teaching and the organisation of their respective education systems, they must exercise that competence in compliance with EU law and, in particular, the Treaty provisions on the right to move and reside within the territory of the Member States (see, to that effect, the judgment in Bressol and Others , paragraph 28, and judgment of 26 February 2015, Martens , C‑359/13, EU:C:2015:118, paragraph 23, and the case-law cited).
[para_79]28 The Member States are thus free to opt for an education system based on free access, without restriction on the number of students who may register, or for a system based on controlled access in which the students are selected. However, where they opt for one of those systems or for a combination of them, the rules of the chosen system must comply with EU law and, in particular, the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality (the judgment in Bressol and Others , paragraph 29).
[para_80]29 In that connection, the Court’s case-law makes clear that every Union citizen may rely on Article 18 TFEU, which prohibits any discrimination on grounds of nationality, in all situations falling within the scope ratione materiae of EU law, those situations including the exercise of the freedom conferred by Article 21 TFEU to move and reside within the territory of the Member States (the judgment in Bressol and Others , paragraph 31, and the case-law cited, and judgment of 13 November 2018, Raugevicius , C‑247/17, EU:C:2018:898, paragraph 44, and the case-law cited).
[para_81]30 Thus, students, such as the applicant in the main proceedings, may rely on the right, enshrined in Articles 18 and 21 TFEU, to move and reside freely within the territory of a Member State without being subject to direct or indirect discrimination on grounds of their nationality (the judgment in Bressol and Others , paragraph 33).
[para_82]31 In that regard, unless objectively justified and proportionate to the aim pursued, national legislation must be regarded as prohibited indirect discrimination if it is intrinsically liable to affect nationals of other Member States more than nationals of the Member State in question and there is a consequent risk that it will place the former at a particular disadvantage (see, to that effect, the judgment in Bressol and Others , paragraph 41, and the case-law cited).
[para_83]32 In the present case, national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings, by subjecting non-resident students to a quota system and, therefore, by limiting access by those students, inter alia, to medical studies, creates a difference in treatment between resident and non-resident students.
[para_84]33 A condition of residence is more easily satisfied by own nationals, who more often than not reside in the Member State of which they are nationals – in this case, Belgium – than by nationals of other Member States whose place of residence is generally in another Member State. That is all the more the case where, like the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings, the status of ‘resident student’ requires not only to have one’s main residence in Belgium but also to satisfy one of the other conditions laid down by that legislation, in particular that of having the right to remain permanently in Belgium. It follows that national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings affects, by its very nature, nationals of Member States other than the Kingdom of Belgium more than nationals of that Member State and that it therefore places the former at a particular disadvantage (see, to that effect, the judgment in Bressol and Others , paragraphs 45 and 46).
[para_85]34 Consequently, in the light of the considerations set out in paragraph 31 of the present judgment, the difference in treatment introduced by national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings constitutes indirect discrimination on the grounds of nationality which is prohibited, unless it is objectively justified and proportionate to the aim pursued. Thus, it must be appropriate for securing the attainment of a legitimate objective and must not go beyond what is necessary to attain that objective (see, to that effect, judgment of 29 July 2024, CU and ND (Social assistance – Indirect discrimination) , C‑112/22 and C‑223/22, EU:C:2024:636, paragraph 53).
[para_86]35 In the first place, it is apparent from the order for reference that the objectives of the legislation at issue in the main proceedings are to maintain a high-quality medical service, to guarantee the quality of supervision during training and to protect public health.
[para_87]36 In that regard, it should be noted that the earlier version of that legislation, which, as has been recalled in paragraph 26 of the present judgment, the Court had to consider in the case which gave rise to the judgment in Bressol and Others , pursued the same objectives. In that context, the Court noted that the matters put forward as justification relating to the quality of training are the same as those linked to the protection of public health where the course concerned falls within that field, as is the case with the medical studies that are the subject of the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings (see, to that effect, the judgment in Bressol and Others , paragraph 54).
[para_88]37 In addition, the Court held that a difference in treatment based indirectly on nationality may be justified by the objective of maintaining a balanced high-quality medical service open to all, in so far as it contributes to achieving a high level of protection of public health (the judgment in Bressol and Others , paragraph 62).
[para_89]38 Since the quota capping non-resident students provided for by the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings pursues that legitimate objective, it is necessary, in the second place, to assess whether it is proportionate to that objective in the light of the principles recalled in paragraph 34 of the present judgment.
[para_90]39 First, the existence of genuine risks to the protection of public health must be established, since such a finding constitutes the premiss on which the question whether that legislation is proportionate will be based.
[para_91]40 As regards the availability of the health service in the territory concerned, the Court has held that it must be acknowledged that a shortage of health professionals would cause serious problems for the protection of public health and that the prevention of that risk requires that a sufficient number of graduates establish themselves in that territory in order to carry out there a medical profession for which they have been trained by following the higher education that is the subject of national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings (see, to that effect, the judgment in Bressol and Others , paragraph 68).
[para_92]41 Nonetheless, it is for the national authorities to show that such a risk to the protection of public health actually exists. According to settled case-law, it is for the Member State wishing to rely on an objective capable of justifying a restriction of a fundamental freedom to prove that the measure concerned does indeed meet the requirements deriving from the principle of proportionality, since the reasons which may be invoked by that Member State by way of justification must be accompanied by an analysis of the appropriateness and necessity of that measure for attaining that objective and specific evidence substantiating its arguments (see, to that effect, the judgment in Bressol and Others , paragraph 71 and the case-law cited, and judgment of 10 July 2025, INTERZERO and Others , C‑254/23, EU:C:2025:569, paragraph 101, and the case-law cited).
[para_93]42 In that regard, the Court has held that, as regards a risk to the protection of public health, such an analysis must, in particular, state the number of graduates who must establish themselves within the French Community to carry out a medical occupation there in order to be able to ensure adequate public health services. That analysis cannot just refer, on the basis of the State of residence of the students concerned prior to commencing their higher education, to the figures concerning one or other group of students and infer, in particular, that at the end of their studies all the non-resident students will establish themselves in the State in which they resided before commencing their studies and pursue there the occupation for which they have been trained. Consequently, that analysis must take into account the impact of the group of non-resident students on the pursuit of the objective of ensuring the availability of professionals within the French Community. In addition, account must be taken, first, of the possibility that resident students may decide to exercise their profession in a State other than the Kingdom of Belgium at the end of their studies and, second, of the extent to which persons who have not studied within the French Community may establish themselves there later in order to exercise such a profession (see, to that effect, the judgment in Bressol and Others , paragraphs 72 and 73).
[para_94]43 Second, if it were found that such a risk to the protection of public health actually exists, it would be necessary to establish, in accordance with the principles recalled in paragraph 34 of the present judgment, whether a quota capping non-resident students provided for by the national legislation of a Member State, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, may be regarded as appropriate for securing the attainment of the objective of protecting public health, in so far as such a quota is in fact such as to increase the number of graduates capable of ensuring in the future the availability of the health service in the territory of that Member State (see, to that effect, the judgment in Bressol and Others , paragraphs 75 and 76).
[para_95]44 In that regard, subject to verification by the referring court, it does not seem inconceivable that, as the Belgian Government maintains, the corollary of the quota capping non-resident students, namely access to the first year of medical studies by a certain number of students who, before commencing their higher education, satisfy a condition of residence capable of establishing the existence of a real and effective degree of connection to Belgian society, contributes to the attainment of the objective of ensuring that, at the end of their studies at a university of the French Community, a sufficient number of graduates establish themselves in the territory of that Community in order to carry out there the medical profession for which they have been trained by following that secondary education.
[para_96]45 It is apparent from the Court’s case-law that students who are resident in a Member State when they are about to embark on their higher education studies may be more likely than non-resident students to settle for work in that Member State after completing their studies (see, to that effect, judgment of 20 June 2013, Giersch and Others , C‑20/12, EU:C:2013:411, paragraph 67).
[para_97]46 Third, as follows from the principles recalled in paragraph 34 of the present judgment, national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings must not go beyond what is necessary to attain the objective of protecting public health relied on.
[para_98]47 As is apparent from the request for a preliminary ruling, the dispute pending before the referring court raises the specific question whether that is the case with the legislation of a Member State from which it follows that the category of non-resident students subject to a quota system such as that at issue in the main proceedings includes candidates who have completed a significant part of their school education in that Member State and have been issued their diploma of completion of secondary education there, while residing in another Member State.
[para_99]48 In that regard, it is apparent from the case-law of the Court that a condition of residence may be disproportionate if it is too exclusive in nature because it unduly favours an element which is not necessarily the sole element representative of the real and effective degree of connection with a Member State (see, to that effect, judgment of 20 June 2013, Giersch and Others , C‑20/12, EU:C:2013:411, paragraph 72, and the case-law cited).
[para_100]49 In that regard, it follows from paragraphs 61 and 62 of the judgment of 15 March 2005, Bidar (C‑209/03, EU:C:2005:169), that the fact that a student has received a substantial part of his secondary education in a Member State is such as to establish, for that student, a genuine link with the society of that Member State.
[para_101]50 As the Advocate General observed in point 46 of his Opinion, integration, as such, within the education system of a Member State, on the one hand, and the involvement in ancillary activities and development of social relationships, which are essential complements of the pursuit of studies within that system, on the other, are such as to establish a real and effective degree of connection between the pupil or student concerned and that Member State.
[para_102]51 In that context, it must be stated that that real and effective degree of connection with a Member State resulting from school education completed in that Member State is not called into question merely because the students concerned, such as the applicant in the main proceedings, travel, from a Member State in which they reside, to the Member State in which they pursue their secondary education. Consequently, the same applies to the likelihood that persons who have developed such a connection will settle for work in that latter Member State at the end of their higher education.
[para_103]52 In that regard, it should be noted that, in the judgment of 20 June 2013, Giersch and Others (C‑20/12, EU:C:2013:411), which concerned national legislation granting financial aid for higher education, the Court held that the scheme established by that legislation was too exclusive, since, by imposing a condition of prior residence of the student in the territory of the Member State concerned, namely the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, that legislation prioritised an element which is not necessarily the sole element representative of the actual degree of connection between the person concerned and that Member State. The Court held that the a reasonable probability that a student in receipt of the aid concerned will settle for work in Luxembourg, following higher education studies both in Luxembourg and in another country, may be found to exist on the basis of a sufficient connection between that student and the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg stemming from the fact that that student resides alone or with his or her parents, who continue to support him or her, in a Member State which borders upon the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, and that, for a significant period of time, his or her parents have carried out their professional activities in Luxembourg as frontier workers and live near to that Member State (see, to that effect, judgment of 20 June 2013, Giersch and Others , C‑20/12, EU:C:2013:411, paragraphs 75 to 77 and 82, and the case-law cited).
[para_104]53 Such considerations are also relevant where the real and effective degree of connection with the Member State concerned on account of the activities pursued there stems from the fact that the students themselves travel to that Member State where, like the applicant in the main proceedings, they complete a significant part of their school education and are issued their diploma of completion of secondary education there.
[para_105]54 It is apparent from the file before the Court and from the oral exchanges at the hearing before it that, under the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings, no provision was made for the possibility that, in order to attain the objective of protecting public health, the existence of a real and effective degree of connection with the Kingdom of Belgium could be established on the basis of a condition other than the condition of residence set out in that legislation.
[para_106]55 Consequently, legislation of a Member State such as that at issue in the main proceedings which, as regards enrolment in the first year of medical studies, introduces, on the sole basis of a condition of residence, a quota capping non-resident students and, on that basis, introduces a difference in treatment between, on the one hand, resident students and, on the other hand, non-resident students, without any provision being made, in respect of the latter, for account to be taken of the real and effective degree of connection with that Member State stemming from the fact that they completed a significant part of their education in that Member State and were issued their diploma of completion of secondary education there goes beyond what is necessary to attain that legitimate objective.
[para_107]56 It follows that national legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings does not meet the requirements deriving from the principle of proportionality.
[para_108]57 In the light of the foregoing considerations, the answer to the question referred is that the first paragraph of Article 18 and Article 21(1) TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which, as regards enrolment in the first year of medical studies, subjects those candidates who have completed a significant part of their school education in that Member State and have been issued their diploma of completion of secondary education there, while residing in another Member State, to a quota applicable to non-resident students.
Costs
[para_110]58 Since these proceedings are, for the parties to the main proceedings, a step in the action pending before the referring court, the decision on costs is a matter for that court. Costs incurred in submitting observations to the Court, other than the costs of those parties, are not recoverable.
On those grounds, the Court (Fifth Chamber) hereby rules:
[para_112]The first paragraph of Article 18 and Article 21(1) TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which, as regards enrolment in the first year of medical studies, subjects those candidates who have completed a significant part of their school education in that Member State and have been issued their diploma of completion of secondary education there, while residing in another Member State, to a quota applicable to non-resident students.
[para_113][Signatures]
[para_114]* Language of the case: French.