Abstract

Appraisal of the Complaints Board
Regarding the appeal,
9. The admissible appeal is unfounded.
is not entitled to participate in the Irish ONL course: there is no legal basis for this. The decision of the ES BRX II dated 30 August 2022 is not vitiated by any errors in law and does not violate the rights of the applicants.

10. The “Language Policy of the European Schools” (2019-01-D-35-en-2) (hereinafter LP-ES), which forms the legal basis for [...]'s potential participation in the Irish ONL course, stipulates the following:
(...)

11. It is clear from the rules of the LP-ES referred to above, that for a pupil with Irish citizenship, participation in an Irish ONL course is only possible if he/she is enrolled and taught in the English language section. Article 1.6.2. LP-ES stipulates “Irish ... as Other National Language is available to Irish nationals enrolled in the English language section only”.

12. Contrary to the opinion of the applicants, this rule of the LP-ES does not violate any higher-ranking law; in particular, it is neither discriminatory nor contrary to the principle of equality, even indirectly, with regard to Irish-speaking pupils. While pupils with Irish citizenship cannot readily and independent of their choice of language section participate in an ONL course in their national language, participation hinges far more on another substantive requirement – enrolment exclusively in the English language section. The associated differentiation of Irish pupils with regard to participation in an Irish ONL course is justifiable in objective terms both in light of the pupil's own choice of language section and on legitimate and compelling organisational grounds.

13. The starting point for potential participation in an Irish ONL course is the choice of the English language section. The task of choosing and requesting enrolment in the language section falls to the voluntary decision of the parents, in this case the applicants, insofar as a language section corresponding to the child's mother tongue or dominant language was chosen. By choosing the German language section, it should have been clear to them that participation in an ONL course in the Irish language was no longer possible due to the connection with the English language section and the “proximity” with the English language. If, however, the applicants were free to choose a language section within the framework of the ES BRX II offer, they themselves “set the course” for the future organisation of their daughter's schooling, with all the accompanying consequences. The Complaints Board does not, therefore, see any evidence of (indirect) discrimination or unequal treatment.

14. Furthermore, the organisational framework and organisational discretion of the ES BRX II, which cannot, in principle, be revised by the Complaints Board, relating to language sections and the teaching languages offered, enables the Schools to determine certain organisational framework conditions independently with a view to organising a multi-cultural and multi-lingual school environment appropriately. A one-off language education desired by the parents and tailored to specific needs must, in contrast, take second place. Accordingly, on organisational grounds, it appears appropriate to the Board only to offer Irish pupils the possibility of participating in a thirty-minute – Irish – ONL course three times a week, during which time the other pupils – of the English language section – continue being taught in English. Against the backdrop of a temporary “withdrawal” from English class in accordance with the presentation of the ES, this differentiation – Irish pupils in the English language section can participate and Irish pupils in another section cannot – appears entirely possible from an organisational standpoint if the language teaching (English and Irish) run parallel to one another during this period. With a different language combination, this is therefore not guaranteed, because parallel language classes and coordinated curricular content would have to be ensured which would not readily be the case in relation to the German or French language sections, for example. Accordingly, due to these significant organisational differences and the existing organisational discretion of the ES with regard to the teaching offer and the structure of the classes in the individual sections, there is an objective reason underpinning the differentiated regulation adopted in the LP-ES with no further legal considerations.

15. The additional objection, submitted by the applicants and disputed by the ES, that the principle of equality has been violated because other pupils could participate in an Irish ONL course despite not being enrolled in the English language section, is not relevant. First, the applicants have not submitted any tangible, transparent facts that can be verified by the collection of evidence. Second, there is no entitlement to equal treatment contrary to the applicable rules as such participation in an Irish ONL course by pupils in language sections other than the English language section would violate the rules of the LP-ES.

16. It therefore follows that the applicants' appeal is unfounded for the reasons presented above.