4.The Commission observes that the preliminary question from the Verwaltungsgericht must be understood in the following sense:(a) Does Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68 contain a prohibition on discrimination?(b) Should this prohibition — limited to admission to educational courses — be interpreted strictly or broadly?The Verwaltungsgericht is right in citing Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68 against the discriminatory provisions of Article 3 of BayAföG. Article 7 of the EEC Treaty does not apply in this case, because this provision of a general nature is displaced by the specific provisions of Articles 48 and 49 of the Treaty and to the rules of secondary law based on Article 49 of the Treaty. Article 7 of Regulation No 1612/68 is not relevant either. The prohibition on discrimination contained in this provision relates only to employment and is for the benefit of the workers themselves, so that advantages intended for members of their family are excluded from the scope of Article 7. Under Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68 the children of migrant workers shall be admitted to general educational, apprenticeship and vocational training courses ‘under the same conditions as the nationals of that (host) State, if such children are residing in its territory’.Both the wording of Article 12 and its position in Regulation No 1612/68 leads to the conclusion that this provision involves a prohibition on discrimination which has a direct effect in the domestic legal order of Member States.On the question of whether the admission to educational courses under 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 Court in its judgments of 13 October 1969 in Case 15/69 (Ugliola), Rec. 1969, 363, of 13 December 1972 in Case 44/72 (Marsman), Rec. 1972, 1243 and of 11 April 1973 in Case 76/72 (Michael S.) [1973] ECR 457. According to this case law the Community rules in social matters are based on the principle that the law of each Member State must ensure for nationals of other Member States, employed in its territory, all the advantages which it accords its own nationals. In the case of Michel S. the Court, referring to the fifth recital of Regulation No 1612/68, considered Article 12 applicable to the benefits provided for by the law of the host country with regard to the social rehabilitation of the handicapped. In view of the clear guidance from the case law of the Court in the matter, there is no doubt that ‘admission to general educational courses’ must be understood in a broad sense, involving the equal treatment of children of migrant workers as regards the financial conditions provided for in the legal system of the host States for attendance at general educational courses.
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.