European Unions Law - Essay Example

EUROPEAN UNION’S LAW (a)What was the factual basis of the claims in the national courts brought by Ms. Morgan and Ms. Bucher? The factual basis of the claims in the national courts brought by Ms. Morgan and Ms. Bucher were classified as two cases, that is, C-11/06 and C -12/06 respectively. Both cases involved the verdict given in accordance to BAfOG, Germany’s Federal Law on encouragement of Education and Training. The first case was between Ms. Morgan verses the Regional Authority. Ms Morgan completed her secondary level citizen has had the opportunity to work as an au pair in the United Kingdom (UK), for one year. In September 2004, she began studying applied genetics at University of West of England, Briston, United Kingdom. In the same year, she launched claims for consideration of an educational grant in the UK, giving reasons that courses in genetics were not offered in her country Germany. The application was rejected on ground that Ms. Morgan did not meet conditions on paragraph five, clause two that is 5(2) of the Federal Law on encouragement of Education and Training BAfOG. Ms. Morgan was denied grant, because she was not continuing her learning in another member state, studies initially pursued in Germany for at least one year. She had started her’s in the UK and so, failed to satisfy that condition. In the second case, Ms. Bucher began her studies in ergo-therapy in Netherlands, close to the German border. Living with her parents in Bonn, they moved to Duren, where she registered as her permanent residence before traveling to Heerlen for studies. Ms. Butcher applied for an educational grant to pursue training the Netherlands. The application was rejected on condition that Ms. Bucher did not fulfill paragraph 5(1) of the BAfOG. It was alleged that Ms. Bucher established residence on the border to facilitate her training. Reason given for denial was, Ms. Bucher did not satisfy the conditions either on paragraph 5(1) of the BAfOG or those stated on 5(2). Entitlement to an educational grant as member state citizens to both applicants is the factual claim in the two cases that is C-11/06 and C-12/06 (b)Express in your own words the question or questions referred to the Court of Justice for interpretation. Questions referred to the Court of Justice for interpretation were two, the first question common in both cases. Does the rights of movement allocate for citizens in the Union under Articles 17 EC and 18 EC the rights to deter a Member State, in a case like Ms. Morgan’s and Bucher’s, from awarding an education or training grant to its nationals for a course of study in other Member States on ground that the course does not reflect a continuation of studies pursued at an educational institutional in their national territory for at least one year? Secondly, does the freedom to move assure citizens of the Union under Articles 17 EC and 18 EC the denial to move to a Member State, in a case like Ms. Morgan’s and Bucher’s for an educational or training grant to its nationals, living on the borders to pursue their courses of study in a union’s member state, on grounds that they are residing at the border to access or only for education or training purposes and the place of residence is not their permanent hometown? (c)How did the German government seek to justify its position in EU law? German government seek to justify its position in EU law by stating that both Ms. Morgan and Ms. Bucher did not satisfy conditions on several paragraphs on the BAfOG that is paragraph 5(2) in Ms. Morgan’s row with the Regional Authority in case, C-11/06 and Ms. Butcher verses the Chief Officer of the District Authority of Duren where paragraphs 5(1) which states, ‘An education or training grant shall be awarded to Germans students within the meaning of the Basic Law, where they attend an education or training establishment abroad each day from their permanent residence in Germany. The permanent residence within the meaning of this Law shall be established at the place which is the centre of interests, not only temporarily, of the person concerned, irrespective of the intention to become permanently established; a person who resides at a place only for education or training purposes has not established his permanent residence there’., 5(2) which states, ‘Students who have their permanent residence in Germany shall be awarded an education or training grant for attending an education or training establishment abroad if: having attended a German education or training establishment for a period of at least one year, the students continue their education or training at an education or training establishment in a Member State of the European Union, and [they] possess sufficient language knowledge..’ (Europa). (d)To what extent are Member States free to pursue an independent approach to education? Member States are free to pursue an independent approach to education if the Court has seen that it may be legitimate for Member States, to ensure that the grant of assistance covering maintenance costs on students from other Member States does not become a burden with consequences for the overall level of assistance granted by that State, such assistance is to given to students who with a degree of integration in the society of that State. As long as members are also able to pay for their educational cost without necessarily involving the governmental grants institution, they are entitled to proceed in further training in neighboring states after they are presented with a pass. (e)When may a restriction such as that in Morgan and Bucher be justified? A restriction such as that in Morgan and Bucher can be justified, in accordance to the Community law if it’s based on important considerations of public interest without basing on the citizenship of the candidates concerned, if it is relative to the legitimate objective sort after by the provisions of national law. From case-law a measure is proportionate if, while securing the attainment of the objective, it does not go beyond necessity in order to attain that objective (Craig, 2008). . Provided the students in question satisfy the first-stage condition, they could be given an education grant for an extra year if they return to their countries to complete their studies in a native education establishment (f)How did the Court of Justice clarify the law in Morgan and Bucher? Assess the extent to which the judgment contributes to the development of students’ rights of free movement within the EU. The following reason were given by the Court of Justice in regard to the case ruling: First, according to the Regional Authority, the condition becomes justifiable by the need to ensure, education grants are given to students with capacity to succeed only. Similarly, in these cases, the condition’s purpose was to enable students to exhibit their desire to pursue and complete studies successfully. Secondly, the role of the first-stage studies condition is to determine if students or candidates had made ‘the most appropriate choice’ of their career studies. Lastly, the system of education or training grants, wholly, intention is to promote pursuit of studies in other Member States to the most competent students in accordance with the BAfOG. The applicants had not fulfilled the conditions provided by law. In my own assessment, the rules control movement of students maintaining a balanced population and in turn giving the most qualified or appropriate candidates’ first priority. If the conditions on the BAfOG, after all grants any candidate rights to pursue their training in other member states without scrutiny, they might end up giving candidates without even interest in studying the chance to go and fulfill their own goals that likely are not educationally oriented.(Eur.lex, 2008). REFERENCES Alibris (2008). EU Law. : retrieved on 1/05/2008 from the World Wide Web at http://www.alibris.com/booksearch.detail?S=R&bid=9445434699&cm_mmc=shopcompare-_-base-_-aisbn-_-na Eur.lex (2008). 62006J0011: retrieved on 1/05/2008 from the World Wide Web at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62006J0011:EN:NOT#top Europa (2008). Enforcing EU law: retrieved on 1/05/2008 from the World Wide Web at http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/index_en.htm Read More