Skip to content

GlobalLawDBby GenieAI

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Search the text of the law

Log in Get an API key

Laws Search Sanctions Map Data Developers

Log in Get an API key

The Global Law Database. Free to read, built for people and AI agents.

Explore

All laws
Search the text
Sanctions
Map of connections
Compare UK and EU

Developers

AI agents (MCP)
REST API
Bulk data
API keys

Coverage

United Kingdom
European Union
United States
Canada
Australia
France
Germany
Netherlands
Spain
Austria
Norway
Finland
Switzerland
Ireland

GlobalLawDB is made by GenieAI, London. It is not legal advice: check the official text before relying on it. Text comes from official publishers under their licences, listed on the Data page.

ThemeMatch my systemLightDark

European Union
European Commission v Republic of Austria (C-75/11)
Judgment
The action
Findings of the Court
43

European Commission v Republic of Austria (C-75/11)

Judgment of 4 Oct 2012law://eu/cjeu/2011/c-75-11/para_43@2026-11-10

43It follows that a scheme providing for reduced transport fares for students comes within the scope of the FEU Treaty in so far as it enables them, directly or indirectly, to cover their maintenance costs.

Source: EUR-Lex, © European Union, 1998-2026. Reuse authorised under Decision 2011/833/EU.

Key facts

Court: Court of Justice · Second Chamber
Case: C-75/11 · ECLI:EU:C:2012:605
Decided: 4 Oct 2012
Procedure: Infringement action
Applicant: European Commission
Defendant: Republic of Austria
Rapporteur: A. Ó Caoimh
Advocate General: J. Kokott
Bench: 5 judges
J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, U. Lõhmus, A. Rosas, A. Ó Caoimh, C.G. Fernlund
Language: German
Official: CURIA · EUR-Lex 62011CJ0075

Topics

Non-discrimination on grounds of nationality

History · 1 version

4 Oct 2012Reading

Connections

Cited by 7: Republic of Austria v Federal Republic of Germany (C-591/17); Denis Raugevicius (C-247/17); A v Latvijas Republikas Veselības ministrija (C-535/19); European Commission v Kingdom of the Netherlands (C-233/14)10 provisions; Andreas Ingemar Thiele Meneses v Region Hannover (C-220/12)2 provisions; Laurence Prinz v Region Hannover (C‑523/11) and Philipp Seeberger v Studentenwerk Heidelberg (C‑585/11) (C-523/11, C-585/11)2 provisions; L. N. v Styrelsen for Videregående Uddannelser og Uddannelsesstøtte (C-46/12)3 provisions
Cites 13: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (consolidated 2016)3 provisions; Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of the Council of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons and their families moving within the Community; 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 (Text with EEA relevance); The Queen, on the application of Dany Bidar v London Borough of Ealing and Secretary of State for Education and Skills (C-209/03); María Martínez Sala v Freistaat Bayern (C-85/96); Rudy Grzelczyk v Centre public d'aide sociale d'Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve (C-184/99); Marie-Nathalie D'Hoop v Office national de l'emploi (C-224/98); Athanasios Vatsouras and Josif Koupatantze v Arbeitsgemeinschaft (ARGE) Nürnberg 900 (C-22/08); Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria (C-147/03); Jacqueline Förster v Hoofddirectie van de Informatie Beheer Groep (C-158/07); Nicolas Bressol and Others and Céline Chaverot and Others v Gouvernement de la Communauté française (C-73/08); Lucy Stewart v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (C-503/09); Brian Francis Collins v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (C-138/02)