Student Mobility in the EU – Recent Case Law, Reflections and Recommendations
Now more than ever, it appears that both societal and political factors are supporting and stimulating student mobility in all its shapes and forms, most notably through various initiatives on the European level. The Bologna Process, the European Qualifications Framework and the Lisbon Recognition Convention are all examples of this commitment undertaken by the Member States of the EU as well as other European nations. However, upon taking a closer look at the practical reality, we see that many obstacles remain to exist. As EU law currently stands after the Forster and Morgan and Bucher judgments, mobile students do not have a right to maintenance grants, neither from their host state or their home state. Furthermore, the European Court of Justice has – albeit reluctantly – allowed an exception to the principle of equal treatment on grounds of nationality with regards to access to higher education in the Bressol case. Although the recent, somewhat more restrictive attitude of the European Court can be defended and perhaps even welcomed, it does illustrate the need for a discussion and potential action on the European level by the political institutions. This contribution includes a discussion of the recent ECJ case law on student mobility and some reflections on the desirability, feasibility and potential form and content of such future action.
Balanced Mobility Across the Board—A Sensible Objective?
This article explores the concept of balanced mobility as set in the European Higher Education Area (EHEA) context. The exploration is done through a succession of steps. We first try to trace and understand the goal of having more balanced mobility between the Bologna Process countries, and to see how the concept of “balance” could be interpreted, given that policy references to balanced mobility leave room for interpretation. Next, we try to provide an answer to the question: Why has balanced mobility become an objective at this particular point in time? Third, we present recent statistics on student mobility in the EHEA context in order to show how balanced or imbalanced mobility flows are. Fourth, we try to outline some possible solutions for correcting different types of imbalances encountered in the EHEA context. And last, we try to conclude from the findings of previous sections what would be reasonable to expect in the EHEA context with regards to this policy aim.
EU Citizenship and the Principle of Affectedness
The principle of affectedness, also known as the ‘all-affected’ principle, is one of the key tenets of democratic theory. At its heart, the principle is a straightforward one, encompassing as it does the idea that all those who are affected by a political decision should have a say in its making. The question raised by this chapter is what role, if any, the principle does and should play within EU citizenship. Given the close link between citizenship and democracy, the chapter will inevitably need to consider the debates about the affectedness principle that are found in the literature on democracy (Dahl 1970; Whelan 1983; Saward 2000). However, the principle is also used in areas which — while not directly connected with democracy — are of key importance from a citizenship perspective. As we shall see, it is, for example, employed as a means of limiting the personal scope of accountability-related citizenship rights such as access to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The chapter thus seeks to add to the existing literature by considering the part played by the principle in this, more obviously ‘legal’, area of citizenship.