Opinion of Advocate General Emiliou delivered on 10 July 2025.

• Jurisdiction: European Union
• Court: Court of Justice (European Union)
• ECLI: ECLI:EU:C:2025:560
• Date: 10 July 2025

Provisional text

OPINION OF ADVOCATE GENERAL

EMILIOU

delivered on 10 July 2025 (1)

Case C‑48/24

VšĮ Vilniaus tarptautinė mokykla

v

Valstybinė kalbos inspekcija

(Request for a preliminary ruling from the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania))

( Reference for a preliminary ruling – Article 49 TFEU – Freedom of establishment – Restriction – National legislation requiring staff of a private educational establishment to have knowledge of the official State language – Justification – National identity – Proportionality – Directive 2005/36/EC – Article 53 – Knowledge of a language necessary for practising a regulated profession )

I. Introduction

1. Language is not merely a means of communication but also a vessel of culture and identity. (2) The EU Treaties acknowledge the pivotal role of language; the fourth subparagraph of Article 3(3) TEU and Article 22 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union both provide that the Union is to respect its linguistic diversity. Furthermore, under Article 4(2) TEU, the Union is also to respect the national identity of its Member States, which the Court has held to include the protection of their official languages. (3)

2. Against this backdrop, the Court has, on several occasions, been called to examine the interplay between the protection of the official languages of the Member States and the respect for EU fundamental freedoms. (4) The present reference for a preliminary ruling by the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania) raises a similar issue and offers an opportunity for further development of the Court’s relevant case-law.

3. The referring court’s questions have arisen in the context of proceedings between the Valstybinė kalbos inspekcija (State Language Inspectorate, Lithuania; ‘the Inspectorate’) and the Vilniaus tarptautinė mokykla (Vilnius International School; ‘the School’), a private educational institution offering educational programmes solely in the English language. The dispute concerns the imposition on the School’s teaching and administrative staff of a national requirement for intermediate proficiency in the Lithuanian language – a requirement that applies to employees in certain posts involving communication with the public (‘the language requirement’). The referring court seeks guidance regarding the compatibility of that language requirement with the freedom of establishment under Article 49 TFEU as well as with Article 53 of Directive 2005/36/EC (‘the Recognition Directive’) (5) which concerns linguistic requirements for regulated professions.

II. Legal framework

A. European Union law

4. Article 53 of the Recognition Directive, under the heading ‘Knowledge of Languages’, reads:

‘1. Professionals benefiting from the recognition of professional qualifications shall have a knowledge of languages necessary for practising the profession in the host Member State.

…

3. Controls [of compliance with the obligation under paragraph 1] may be imposed if the profession to be practised has patient safety implications. Controls may be imposed in respect of other professions in cases where there is a serious and concrete doubt about the sufficiency of the professional’s language knowledge in respect of the professional activities that that professional intends to pursue.

…

4. Any language controls shall be proportionate to the activity to be pursued. …’

B. Lithuanian law

5. Article 14 of the Lietuvos Respublikos Konstitucija (Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania) provides that Lithuanian is the State language (‘the State language’).

6. Article 6 of the Lietuvos Respublikos valstybinės kalbos įstatymas (Law of the Republic of Lithuania on the State Language; ‘the Law on the State Language’) provides, inter alia, that ‘heads, employees and officers of … establishments providing services to the population must know the State language according to the language proficiency categories established by the Government of the Republic of Lithuania’.

7. In accordance with that Article 6, the Lithuanian Government adopted nutarimas Nr. 1688 (‘Resolution No 1688’) of 24 December 2003, by which it approved the Valstybinės kalbos mokėjimo kategorijų nustatymo ir jų taikymo tvarkos aprašas (Description of the procedure for determining and applying the categories of proficiency in the State language; ‘the Description’), annexed thereto.

8. Paragraph 6 of the Description establishes three categories of proficiency in the State language (the first category being the lowest and the third being the highest). In accordance with Paragraph 6.2 of the Description, the second category of proficiency corresponds to an intermediate level B1 of proficiency in Lithuanian. (6) Pursuant to Paragraph 8 of the Description, that second category applies, inter alia, to employees in the field of education, culture, healthcare and social security (except for teachers teaching in the State language) if, for the purpose of their work, they must communicate regularly with persons and/or complete standardised document forms.

III. Facts, national proceedings and the questions referred

9. The appellant in the main proceedings, the School, is a private educational institution registered and operating in Lithuania since 2004. It was founded by a Lithuanian national and currently has three stakeholders: a Finnish national (holding 49.96%), a Danish national (holding 25.02%) and a United States national (holding the remaining 25.02%).

10. The School has obtained the requisite authorisations from the national authorities of the Republic of Lithuania to deliver educational programmes in a language other than Lithuanian, a possibility that is afforded by national legislation. (7) More specifically, the School provides the Cambridge International AS/A level programme and the International Baccalaureate primary years and middle years programmes, all of which are taught in English (‘the English-language programmes’).

11. On 19 and 25 May 2022, the Inspectorate carried out an inspection to verify the School’s compliance with the Law on the State Language and with Resolution No 1688. It concluded that 18 of the School’s employees – of which 5 were EU nationals and the others third-country nationals – had not passed the examination for the second category of proficiency in the State language (or had not submitted the corresponding certificate), as required by Resolution No 1688 for those employees in the field of education who must communicate regularly with persons or complete standardised document forms. (8)

12. On the basis of that inspection, the Inspectorate issued an order dated 26 May 2022, requiring that the 18 employees in question – comprising both teachers and members of the administrative staff (specifically the head and deputy head of the School) – pass the relevant State language proficiency examination by 2 February 2023 (‘the contested order’). Considering that, under national legislation, (9) entities such as the School must ensure compliance with relevant legal acts, including the provisions laying down the language requirement, the contested order was addressed to the School and provided for penalties against it in the event of non-compliance.

13. The School brought an action before the Vilniaus apygardos administracinis teismas (Regional Administrative Court, Vilnius, Lithuania), seeking the annulment of the contested order. That action was dismissed by judgment of 17 November 2022 and the School subsequently appealed before the Lietuvos vyriausiasis administracinis teismas (Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania), which is the referring court.

14. Against that background, that court, harbouring doubts as to the compatibility of the language requirement with Article 49 TFEU and Article 53 of the Recognition Directive, decided to stay the proceedings and to refer the following questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling:

‘(1) Is Article 49 [TFEU] to be interpreted as meaning that it includes within its scope the requirement, laid down by national law, for proficiency in the State language which applies to the administrative staff and teachers of an educational establishment founded by a private natural person, which establishment implements an international secondary education programme and International Baccalaureate programmes for primary years and middle years?

(2) If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative, is Article 49 [TFEU] to be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the requirement for proficiency in the State language applies without exception, first, to all teachers working in an educational establishment founded by a private natural person, which establishment delivers an international secondary education programme and International Baccalaureate primary years and middle years programmes, and, second, to the administrative staff of such educational establishment, irrespective of any circumstances specific to the activities of the educational establishment concerned[?]

(3) Is Article 53 of [the Recognition Directive] to be interpreted as precluding national legislation, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, under which the requirement for proficiency in the State language applies, without exception, to all teachers working in an educational establishment founded by a private natural person, which establishment delivers an international secondary education programme and International Baccalaureate primary years and middle years programmes, irrespective of any circumstances specific to the activities of the educational establishment concerned[?]’

15. The Lithuanian, Latvian and Netherlands Governments, as well as the European Commission, have submitted written observations. No hearing was held.

IV. Analysis

16. By its three...