1. Observations submitted by Mr and Mrs Forcheri
The plaintiffs in the main action contend that according to Community law it is unlawful to claim in Belgium payment of the fee for foreign students, to which Belgian and Luxembourg students are not subject, from students who, like Mrs Forcheri, are the spouses of officials of the European Communities, are nationals of a Member State and live in Belgium because their spouses must live there for their work in the service of the Communities. The requirement is in breach inter alia of the principle of nondiscrimination between nationals of Member States, contained in particular in Article 7 of the Treaty and, in the sphere of free movement of workers, in Articles 48 and 49 of the Treaty and Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68 of the Council.According to the plaintiffs in the main action freedom of movement, which is an aspect of the principle of nondiscrimination, requires, as the preamble to the said regulation states, that obstacles to the mobility of workers should 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 country.” The fee for foreign students is an obstacle to the integration into Belgium of the family of a worker who is a national of a Member State of the Community and resides in Belgium. That is a fortiori the case where the fee is demanded of the spouse of an official of the Communities is bound by the terms of the Staff Regulations to live where he works or within such distance that he is not impedwho ed in carrying out his duties.Article 12 of Regulation No 1612/68 mentions only the children of a national of a Member State but there is no doubt that the scope ratione materiae must be extended to all members of the family of a worker who are students and in particular to the spouse since the ratio legis is the integration of the family of the immigrant worker into the host country in accordance with the requirements of the basic principle of nondiscrimination between nationals of the Member States. The Court has, moreover, already given a wide interpretation to Article 12 (Cases 9/74 Casagrande [1974] ECR 773 and 32/75 Cristini [1975] ECR 1085). In addition, according to a report from the Committee on Education adopted by the Council on 27 June 1980, where enrolment fees are required in a Member State students from other countries of the Community cannot be charged more than the students from the Member State in question (cf. Official Journal C 316, 3. 12. 1980, Commission's answer to Written Question No 1248/80 from Mr Seal).Ex abundanti cautela the plaintiffs in the main action observe that the requirement at issue also disregards the provisions of Article 12 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities and that Luxembourg students are exempt from the fee for foreign students albeit discrimination between the nationals of the various Member States is unlawful under Community law.Alternatively the plaintiffs in the main action claim that the refusal to grant exemption from the fee on the basis that Mr Forcheri as an official of the European Communities does not pay taxes to the Belgian Treasury disregards the second paragraph of Article 13 of the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities. According to that provision officials and other servants of the Communities are exempt from national taxes on salaries, wages and emoluments paid by the Communities. Accordingly it would be a breach of that provision to deprive the spouse of a European official of a benefit simply because the official does not pay national taxes on his remuneration.
Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.