Frequently, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is tasked with interpreting Treaty articles, even when no specific legislation is in place.¹ Many significant CJEU judgments involve the interpretation of these Treaty articles. Regarding Van Gend en Loos in 1963, it is seen as the most notable landmark case establishing direct effect.²

In terms of the procedure of EU legislation, it is not bound entirely by the CJEU's previous interpretations of Treaty articles.³ When the EU legislature has fully harmonised a specific area, the CJEU will base its interpretation on the harmonised measure rather than the Treaty itself. On the other hand, in cases where there is existing legislation, the CJEU will reconsider its previous approach concerning the Treaty.⁴

With regard to the case related to the Free Movement of Citizens Directive (Directive 2004/38), Dany Bidar, a French national who completed his secondary education in the UK, sought a maintenance loan for a UK university course.⁵ His application was denied on the grounds that he wasn’t considered "settled" in the UK, as he hadn't lived in the UK for the required four years outside of full-time education. Mr. Bidar disputed this decision, citing discrimination and invoking article 12 of the European Communities Treaty (EC) at the time.⁶

The CJEU initially determined that support for covering maintenance costs, whether in the form of subsidised loans or grants for students lawfully residing in the host Member State, fell under the purview of the Treaty, specifically under article 18 EC, citizenship rights.⁷ Consequently, this activated the prohibition on discrimination outlined in article 12 EC.⁸ The CJEU accepted the argument that a Member State had the right to restrict such support to students who demonstrated a certain level of integration into the host Member State, with a residency requirement of three years being deemed acceptable.

With regard to the Förster case, which is related to this case, the Centrale Raad van Beroep, responsible for adjudicating Ms. Förster's appeal, sought guidance from the CJEU on the conditions under which a student from another Member State might qualify for a maintenance grant.⁹ The CJEU acknowledged the legitimacy of a Member State granting assistance for students' living expenses exclusively to those who had shown a certain level of integration into the society of that State.¹⁰ Such integration could be confirmed by the student's residence in the host Member State for a certain period.

In conclusion, the CJEU's central role in interpreting Treaty articles is evident from these cases. These interpretations often form the basis of EU law and have far-reaching implications.¹¹ However, the EU legislature isn't bound absolutely by CJEU interpretations, especially in areas where complete harmonization has occurred. This reflects the delicate balance between the CJEU's authority and EU member states' sovereignty.

References

1. European Union, “Court of Justice of European Union” https://european-union.europa.eu/institutions-law-budget/institutions-and-bodies/search-all-eu-institutions-and-bodies/court-justice-european-union-cjeu_en accessed 15 October
2. Van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Tariefcommissie (Case 26/62) [1963] ECR 1
3. Christopher Vajda, “Democracy in the European Union: what has the Court of Justice to say?” (2015) C.J.I.C.L. 4(2), 226-241 https://uk.westlaw.com/Document/IFF6FAA30239B11E6B28DFFF455EE2E20 accessed 16 October
4. Ibid
5. Dany Bidar v London Borough of Ealing and Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Case 209/03) [2005] ECR I-2119
6. European Communities Treaty (EC), art.12
7. European Communities Treaty (EC), art.18
8. Ibid
9. Jacqueline Förster v Hoofddirectie van de Informatie Beheer Groep (Case 158/07) [2008] ECR I-8507
10. Ibid
11. European Union, “Court of Justice of European Union” https://european-union.europa.eu/institutions-law-budget/institutions-and-bodies/search-all-eu-institutions-and-bodies/court-justice-european-union-cjeu_en accessed 15 October