Abstract
Findings of the Chairman of the Complaints Board
On the admissibility,
6. It is clearly stated in Article 27 of the Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools that the Complaints Board has sole jurisdiction in the first and final instance to rule on all disputes pertaining to the legality of the acts of the organs of the European Schools and has unlimited jurisdiction allowing it not only to annul an administrative decision but also to change it, to censure the administration or to issue an injunction in respect of it solely when the dispute is of a financial character (see decision of the Complaints Board, 13/43) – something which is not the case here.
Consequently, and in accordance with the settled and consistent case law of the Complaints Board, this appeal is admissible only to the strict extent that it seeks annulment of the CEA’s decision of 26 February 2020.
7. On the merits,
Pursuant to and in compliance with the rules laid down in the Policy on Enrolment in the Brussels European Schools for the 2019-2020 school year (hereinafter referred to as the Policy), the appeal is manifestly unfounded in law within the meaning of the aforementioned provisions of Article 32 of the Rules of Procedure of the Complaints Board.
8. According to Article 8.1, “Owing to personal circumstances or to particularities specific to the European Schools, certain enrolment or transfer applications will be deemed to have priority within their category.”
The CEA was right to consider that [...] could not benefit from any special priority criterion within the meaning of Article 8.
It clearly states in its decision, by reference to Article 8.4.2.(l), that attendance at one of the European Schools/sites in a previous school year is not a relevant circumstance for the purposes of recognition of a particular priority criterion.
The only exception to that rule is the provision on ‘Return from assignment’ (Article 8.3), which does not apply in this case (see point 11 below).
10. The particular circumstances invoked by the applicants are related to the consequences of the coronavirus crisis in Hong Kong: closure of local schools and the need to find a schooling structure for [...], both of whose parents work.
The CEA responded to that request by offering a place in one of the European Schools in Brussels: [...]’s schooling is thus ensured.
Pursuant to the provisions of Articles 12.1., 6.1., 6.19., 6.20. and 6.21.(l) of the Enrolment Policy, the place was offered at the European School, Brussels II, as there were no more places available, as meant by Article 4.2. of the Policy, in the first, second and third preference schools/sites.
The applicants requested their son’s enrolment at his former school (Brussels I – Uccle) in order to “minimise distress” and “to mitigate the unacceptable consequences which the rules of this Policy would otherwise have had”, as foreseen in Article 8.4.1.
Nevertheless, they did not explain or justify with supporting documents why their son’s situation might require appropriate treatment and why it might be characterised by circumstances differentiating it from other cases.
11. As stated above, Article 8.3, relating to ‘Return from assignment’, does not apply in this case.
The applicants raised the question, by stating that their son would return to the European School, Brussels I – Uccle when Mrs [...]’s assignment (posting) is over, but they recognise themselves that this is not currently the case.
And indeed, the conditions of a return from assignment are not met.
Article 8.3 cannot therefore justify today a special priority criterion for enrolment at the European School, Brussels I – Uccle.
The CEA responded to that question because it was raised by the applicants themselves, but that is only one part of the statement of the reasons on which its decision was based.