Euroopa Kohtu mõju Euroopa Liidu integratsioonitasemele: õppurite õiguste tagamise kaasuste näitel
Kuupäev
2012
Autorid
Ajakirja pealkiri
Ajakirja ISSN
Köite pealkiri
Kirjastaja
Tartu Ülikool
Abstrakt
Although the European Court of Justice has sometimes even been called the "motor of
integration" and the driving force of integration that influences the level of integration
through its case law, this notion has not been commonly adopted and accepted by all
theoretical approaches dealing with European integration. Debates on the ways how the
role and influence of the Court of Justice on the EU integration process should be
interpreted are still topical.
The choice of subject for this Bachelor's thesis is based on the fact that the free
movement of students in the EU and studies in other Member States have become such
a common part of everyday life that the author of the thesis became interested in finding
out whether and which changes have taken place in connection with the rights of
students. The subject of the thesis is topical as the number of students who use the
opportunity to move freely in the EU area without internal borders and to study in
another Member State has statistically been growing yearly.
The aim of the Bachelor's thesis was to analyse the influence of the Court of Justice on
the integration level of the European Union and to find an answer to the question
whether and in which cases the decisions of the Court of Justice can influence this
integration level. The thesis concentrated on the analysis of the rights of students and
the European Communities’ competence for education and the role of the Court of
Justice in this process. The thesis posed the following hypothesis: the European Court
of Justice has a dominant effect on the integration level of the European Union, but this
is true only if the Member States lack a common position on the issue brought before
the Court of Justice.
The empirical data comprised five of the most important rulings of the Court of Justice
on students' rights, which were also referred to most frequently in specialised literature.
The aim of the methodological framework created for analysing the empirical data and
of the analysis was to determine which of the integration theories dealt with in the thesis, i.e. neofunctionalism or liberal intergovernmentalism, better explains European
integration. The empirical analysis was carried out separately for each case, but the
analysed data were compared to test the hypothesis, and general conclusions were
drawn on this basis.
The results of the analysis did not confirm the hypothesis of the thesis and the influence
of the Court of Justice on the integration level had to be affirmed even in situations
where the Member States had a common position which was almost without exception
contrary to the opinion of the Court of Justice on the specific issue. The ruling of the
Gravier case showed that the Court of Justice does not allow Member States to dictate
the way how to interpret Community law or how to define a specific term (in this case
the term "vocational training") in Community law. Basically the court stated in the
Gravier ruling that the possibilities for obtaining education and internships and
participation in studies are regulated by Community law, which is why it is forbidden to
discriminate against students from other Member States on the basis of citizenship,
which also applies to prescribing an enrolment fee as a precondition to being admitted
to a vocational training course.
The court ruling in the Blaizot case where the Court found that the term "vocational
training" does not exclude university education and extended this term on certain
conditions also to university studies was one step forward in increasing integration in
the field of the Community's competence for education. The change in the integration
level could not be considered defined in the ruling made in the Brown case where the
Court stated clearly that the development level of Community law regarding
competence for education during the preliminary ruling does not allow for subsistence
and education allowances given to university students of other Member States to be
considered to belong within the scope of the Treaties. While in the Gravier and Blaizot
case, the Member States submitting their comments lacked the necessary number of
votes to have a blocking minority in the Council of the European Union during the
preliminary ruling procedure, which would have allowed them to block unfavourable
decisions taken via qualified majority voting in the Council of the European Union, the
blocking minority was reached in the Brown case. In the Grzelczyk case the Court of
Justice dealt with rights stemming from European Union citizenship and solved issues related to the conditions of receiving social benefits. The Court of Justice stated in its
ruling that developments have taken place in the EU’s competence for education,
making it necessary to change previous case law, i.e. the statements of the Brown case,
and to take the position that the EU law recognises certain financial solidarity between
Member States and hence also the right of students from other Member States to receive
social benefits if certain conditions are met. Despite the existence of a common position
of the Member States contradicting the Court of Justice in the Grzelczyk case, the Court
made a ruling that could be considered as reinforcing the level of integration. The
Member States laid a significantly strong emphasis on the preliminary ruling procedure
in the Bidar case, which dealt with issues on receiving study loans, and they took the
common position that subsistence allowances do not fall within the scope of the
Treaties. Despite the strong opposition by the Member States and the European
Commission, the Court found that education allowances in the form of study loans and
stipends belong within the scope of the Treaties, and hence extended the rights of
students.
As the Court of Justice made decisions that clearly increased the rights of students and
the Community's competence for education and did this despite the common opposition
by the Member States, it can be said that the neofunctionalist integration approach
proved to be more accurate. However, the court rulings analysed in this thesis alone are
not a sufficient basis to state unambiguously that the Court made rulings reinforcing the
integration level regarding the competence for education with the clear aim of
increasing its own influence and role, which is why the accuracy of the neofunctionalist
integration theory cannot be definitively affirmed.
The thesis concludes that the European Union integration process is essentially such a
multifaceted and complex process that neither approach alone, i.e. either
neofunctionalism or liberal intergovernmentalism, can fully explain the European
integration process and the role of intergovernmental institutions in it, which is why
further research in this field will be necessary.