Action brought on 6 April 2009 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-132/09)

2009/C 153/39

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: B. Eggers and J.-P. Keppenne, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium

Form of order sought

Pleas in law and main arguments

The Commission alleges a breach of the Agreement concluded in October 1962 between the Board of Governors of the European Schools and the Kingdom of Belgium, involving a refusal by the latter to pay the expenses for teaching equipment and materials for the European Schools established on its territory.

In support of its action, the applicant submits, firstly, that it follows from the second paragraph of Article 6 of the Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools of 21 June 1994 (1) that each Member State must treat the European Schools as an educational establishment governed by its national public law. As a consequence, the European Schools should be financed by the Belgian public authorities and be treated in the same way as national State schools, with regard both to initial equipment required for the opening or extension of a European School and to the annual maintenance and running costs of those schools. In that respect, the federalisation of education in Belgium cannot justify a refusal by the Belgian authorities to finance the annual running costs of the European Schools, since it follows from settled case-law that a Member State cannot avoid obligations which it has assumed by delegating exercise of that power to infra-State public bodies.

In reply to the objections raised by the Belgian authorities, the Commission observes, secondly, that the conclusions arising from the meeting of the Board of Governors held at Karlsruhe in May 1967 in no way call into question the financing obligations on that State in its capacity as a State in which the Schools have a seat.

First of all, at Karlsruhe, the Board of Governors merely drew up guidelines for a standard protocol of agreement with the Member States in which the Schools have a seat and, in any event, it has no authority, having regard to the hierarchy of norms, to amend the Seat Agreement of 1962.

Next, that Karlsruhe ‘decision’ cannot in any way be interpreted as a ‘subsequent agreement or practice of the parties’ within the meaning of Article 31(3)(a) and (b) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, with regard to the interpretation to given to the Seat Agreement, in the absence of a succession of established acts or declarations calling into question the financing obligation laid down by the Seat Agreement. In addition, a number of documents and instances of financing by Belgium after 1967 attest to that obligation to pay the costs of teaching equipment and materials for the European Schools.

(1)  OJ L 212, p. 3.