He had passed the exam, but his address had ruled him out. Four years after being excluded from his medical studies in Belgium, Axel Dris has achieved a decisive victory. In a ruling handed down on Thursday 1 October, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled that a student who had completed a significant part of their schooling in Belgium and obtained their secondary school leaving certificate in that country cannot be subject to the quotas applicable to non-residents.
The Luxembourg national, resident in the Grand Duchy, had completed his schooling in Arlon. In 2022, he passed the entrance and admission examination for medical and dental studies. However, as he was subject to the quota system for non-residents, his ranking did not allow him to obtain the certificate required to enrol in the first year of medicine at a university in the French Community of Belgium. He therefore sought the annulment of this decision. Having been asked to rule on the dispute, the Belgian Council of State has referred the matter to the CJEU to determine whether this rule is compatible with European law.
This rejection had led him to switch to law, and subsequently to defend his own case before the European judges. “I’d passed… but I wasn’t within the quota,” he explained at the time to Paperjam. On 16 April, advocate general Jean Richard de la Tour had published observations in support of his case. The judgment now provides the Court’s response to the crux of his challenge.
A rigid approach upheld by the CJEU
Residence alone cannot negate an entire educational history. In the judges’ view, a substantial period of schooling in a country, evidenced by a secondary school leaving certificate, is likely to establish a genuine link with that society. Integration into the education system, extracurricular activities and the social relationships that accompany one’s studies must be taken into account. This connection “is not called into question by the mere fact that the student resides in another Member State”, the Court emphasises.
Belgium may, however, defend the principle of differential treatment. Ensuring high-quality medical care and having a sufficient number of healthcare professionals setting up practice in the French Community are objectives that may justify quotas. But the measures employed must remain proportionate. However, by relying exclusively on residence, the Belgian regulations fail to take into account the ties that certain applicants have already forged with the country. It is this rigidity that the CJEU has ruled against.
The ruling therefore does not abolish the quota system for non-resident students in its entirety. It requires that account be taken of cases such as that of Axel Dris, whose educational background was shaped on the other side of the border. Its scope extends beyond his individual case: the decision is also binding on national courts that may be called upon to deal with a similar issue. For Axel Dris, however, admission to medical school is not yet guaranteed. The CJEU interprets EU law but does not rule on the national dispute. It is now up to the Belgian Council of State to resolve his case in accordance with the judgment.
