Abstract

Findings of the Chairman of the Complaints Board
Legality of the contested decision
7. It should be pointed out first of all, as the Complaints Board has stated several times (decision of 30 July 2007, appeal 07/14), that whilst it follows clearly from the objectives of the Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools that children of the staff of the European institutions have a right of access to the education provided in those Schools, such a right does not necessarily imply that it must be exercised in the school or section of their choice alone.

8. In accordance with Article 46(1) of the General Rules of the European Schools, for the European Schools located in Brussels, it is the Central Enrolment Authority which decides on a pupil’s enrolment taking account of the enrolment policy and of the instructions issued by the Board of Governors.

9. Determination of pupils’ language section is governed by the rules laid down by Article 47(e) of the General Rules. That provision is conceived as follows:
“e) A fundamental principle of the European Schools is the teaching of mothertongue/dominant language as first language (L1). This principle implies the pupil’s enrolment in the section of his/her mother tongue/ dominant language where such a section exists.
This principle may be waived only where the child has been educated in a language other than his/her mother tongue/dominant language for a minimum of two years at primary or secondary level. The European Schools will presume in that case that the child will be capable of continuing his/her schooling in the language in question.
In schools where the section corresponding to a pupil’s mother tongue/dominant language does not exist, he/she will generally be enrolled in one of the vehicular language sections. He/She will attend the classes in his/her mother tongue/ dominant language organised for so-called SWALS (Students Without A Language Section) as L1.
Parents will not be free to choose their child’s first language (L1), its determination being the responsibility of the school’s Director. L1 must correspond to the child’s mother tongue or dominant language, in the case of multilingual children, the dominant language being the one of which they have the best command.
Should there be any dispute about the pupil’s L1, it will be the Director’s responsibility to determine which language it is, on the basis of the inform tion provided by the pupils’ legal representatives on the enrolment form and by requiring the pupil to take comparative language tests, organised and under the control of the school’s teachers. The tests will be organised whatever the pupil’s age and teaching level, i.e. including the nursery cycle.
(...)"

10. In the case in point, the applicants question the results of the comparative tests, although they do not contest the fact that they were organised in accordance with the provisions of the aforementioned Article 47(e). Now the results of those tests allowed the conclusion to be reached that English is not the child’s dominant language and that he is more at ease in Italian, which is his mother’s language. That finding is not invalidated by the applicants’ assertion that their son speaks three languages (Italian, French and English for education).

11. The CEA therefore had valid reasons to enrol the child in the Italian language section, corresponding to his mother tongue.

12. The exception to the principle of teaching of mother tongue/dominant language as first language (L1), provided for in the aforementioned Article 47(e), where the child has been educated in a language other than his/her mother tongue/dominant language for a minimum of two years at primary or secondary level, cannot be considered to be discriminatory solely because it does not cover the nursery cycle. The reason is that education in a nursery school cannot be regarded as equivalent to that provided at primary or secondary level.

13. As regards the plea based on infringement of the child’s best interests, it should be pointed out that Article 47(e) of the General Rules of the European Schools lays down the fundamental principle of the European Schools which establishes the teaching of mother tongue/dominant language as first language. That principle must clearly be considered to be laid down in the child’s best interests.

14. It has even been mentioned by the applicants in their appeal that they “understand and respect” the decision taken by the CEA but they challenge it for “compelling pedagogical reasons” which clearly have no grounds as per what has been explained here above.

15. In that connection, the applicants’ considerations concerning the career prospect of the mother and her foreseeable post transfers cannot suffice to compromise the application of such a principle.

16. It should be noted, moreover, children who have English as L1 (main language) are obliged to choose between French and German as their second language. This means that if the applicants’ son were enrolled in the English section, he would be obliged to have French or German as second language, in a situation where he already speaks Italian with his parents.

17. As for the applicants’ arguments challenging their son’s performance on the English language test, considering that their son’s performance is to be considered better, it should be noted that these arguments are against the aforementioned principle that exclusive jurisdiction in this matter lies solely with the teachers and not with the parents or the Complaints Board.
However, it would be different if there were a manifest error, a breach of procedure or a new fact.
However, the applicants do not invoke a breach of procedure or a manifest error that would have marred the conduct and the result of such test.

18. The Complaints Board has neither a power of control over the Schools' assessments made pursuant to Article 47 e) of the General Rules in order to carry out a comparative evaluation of the test results to which the applicants' son was subjected, nor a power of injunction with regard to the administration of the European Schools on this matter.
Secondly, assuming that such a request is admissible, quod non, this request by the applicants implies that it must be admitted that the language tests at issue in the present appeal are affected by a manifest error or breach of procedure which, as has just been noted, the applicants neither invoke nor demonstrate.

19. As the plea based on the child's best interests and the English test results cannot, therefore, be upheld, it follows that the appeal must be dismissed.