C_202603290EN.000101.fmx.xml

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Austria) lodged on 26 February 2026 – NQ and ZI represented by the mother of JF

(Case C-134/26, Bildungsdirektion für Niederösterreich)

(C/2026/3290)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesverwaltungsgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Appellants: NQ and ZI represented by the mother of JF

Defendant: Bildungsdirektion für Niederösterreich

Questions referred

On the scope of Article 21 TFEU in the context of schooling

Must Article 21 TFEU be interpreted as precluding national legislation which prevents a minor Union citizen who, together with his or her parents, has exercised his or her right to freedom of movement and moved his or her residence to another Member State, from continuing his or her previous school education in his or her Member State of origin and is instead obliged to attend a school in the host Member State, where such an obligation leads to the interruption or loss of his or her previous school career?

On the grounds for justification under the (Free Movement of Persons) Directive 2004/38/EC (1)

Must Article 27(1) of Directive 2004/38/EC be interpreted as meaning that the grounds of public policy, public security and public health, which are the exhaustive grounds listed, enable a Member State to adopt measures requiring minor Union citizens to leave the school previously attended in the Member State of origin and to attend a school in the host Member State?

On the importance of Union citizenship and the core area of freedom of movement under EU law

Must Article 20 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that the status of Union citizenship, as a fundamental status of nationals of Member States, which derives from that article precludes national measures which are liable to impair the actual exercise of freedom of movement under EU law by minor citizens of the Union by requiring them to abandon the school previously attended in the Member State of origin and to attend a school in the host Member State without there being a specific threat to public policy, public security or public health?

On the principle of proportionality under EU law and the protection of the best interests of the child

Is it compatible with the principle of proportionality under EU law, which derives from Article 21 TFEU, Article 24 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the case-law of the Court of Justice, and with the requirement that the best interests of the child be a primary consideration, for a Member State to adopt measures which may significantly disadvantage the educational path of the minor concerned or lead to a loss of educational opportunities without carrying out an individual assessment of that minor’s educational or personal circumstances?

In the event that questions 1 and 4 are answered in the affirmative:

(a)

Must EU law be interpreted as meaning that the notification required as a prerequisite for continued schooling in the country of origin must be linked to a deadline in a Member State, the actual observance of which is objectively impossible for large parts of a calendar year after relocation to that Member State or which has already been missed?

(b)	If (a) is answered in the affirmative: Is it permissible under EU law that culpable failure by the parents to comply with that deadline leads to the consequences for the child described in question 4?

(1) Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States amending Regulation (EEC) No 1612/68 and repealing Directives 64/221/EEC, 68/360/EEC, 72/194/EEC, 73/148/EEC, 75/34/EEC, 75/35/EEC, 90/364/EEC, 90/365/EEC and 93/96/EEC (OJ 2004 L 158, p. 77).