Introduction
This essay addresses a problem question concerning Denise, an 18-year-old who has moved to Malta, works as a receptionist, and seeks accreditation as a tourist guide. She wishes to enrol in a free training course offered by the City Council of La Valletta, but as a non-Maltese citizen, she is required to pay a 100-euro fee. Using the IRAC (Issue, Rule, Application, Conclusion) framework, this piece advises Denise on whether she must pay the fee under European Union (EU) law. The analysis focuses on EU principles of non-discrimination and free movement, exploring relevant treaties and case law. The essay aims to provide a clear, logical argument while demonstrating a sound understanding of EU law applicable to Denise’s situation.
Issue
The central issue is whether Denise, a non-Maltese EU citizen residing and working in Malta, is required to pay the 100-euro fee for a training course that is free for Maltese citizens, or whether EU law protects her from such differential treatment based on nationality.
Rule
Under EU law, the principle of non-discrimination on the grounds of nationality is enshrined in Article 18 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Furthermore, Article 45 TFEU guarantees the free movement of workers, prohibiting discrimination in access to employment, training, and vocational opportunities (European Union, 2012). The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has consistently upheld that member states must treat EU citizens equally in matters related to employment and training, as seen in cases like *Gravier v City of Liège* (1985), where charging higher fees to non-national EU students was deemed discriminatory (Weatherill, 2016).
Application
Applying these rules to Denise’s case, she appears to be protected by EU law. As an EU citizen working in Malta, Denise exercises her right to free movement under Article 45 TFEU. The training course, directly linked to her aspiration to become a tourist guide, qualifies as vocational training. Therefore, imposing a fee solely on non-Maltese citizens arguably violates the non-discrimination principle under Article 18 TFEU. The precedent in *Gravier* supports this, as the CJEU ruled that access to vocational training must be equitable for all EU nationals. Malta, as a member state, must ensure equal treatment, and charging Denise a fee while exempting Maltese citizens likely constitutes indirect discrimination. However, if Malta can justify the fee on objective grounds (e.g., funding constraints) unrelated to nationality, the discrimination might be permissible, though such justifications are narrowly interpreted by the CJEU (Barnard, 2019).
Conclusion
In conclusion, based on EU law, Denise should not have to pay the 100-euro fee for the training course in La Valletta. The principles of non-discrimination (Article 18 TFEU) and free movement of workers (Article 45 TFEU), reinforced by CJEU rulings, suggest that Malta cannot impose differential treatment based on nationality in access to vocational training. Unless Malta provides a valid, objective justification, Denise is entitled to enrol on the same terms as Maltese citizens. This outcome underscores the broader implication of EU law in safeguarding equal opportunities for citizens across member states, though it also highlights the potential for member states to seek exceptions under strict conditions. Denise should raise this issue with the relevant authorities, citing her rights under EU law, to challenge the fee requirement effectively.
References
- Barnard, C. (2019) The Substantive Law of the EU: The Four Freedoms. 6th ed. Oxford University Press.
- European Union (2012) Consolidated Version of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. Official Journal of the European Union, C 326/47.
- Weatherill, S. (2016) Cases and Materials on EU Law. 12th ed. Oxford University Press.
