Abstract

Findings of the Complaints Board
On the admissibility of the ground of the alleged breach of the Principle of Proportionality, (...)

53.The Applicants have been unable to show that the alleged breach of the principle of proportionality was raised as a plea of law in their initial complaint to the Complaints Board on the 10th May, 2024. Accordingly, it must be concluded that the plea of law, as opposed to the factual circumstances, raised in the communication of the 13th May, 2025 represents a new plea of law which, having regard to the provisions of Article 18.2 of the Rules of Procedure of the Complaints Board, especially in the circumstances where the Applicants submitted in their initial complaint that the refusal of the transfer requested “would pose a significant logistical challenge for their family” is inadmissible.

On the substance of the Appeal,
54. The principle of sibling grouping has been an important feature of the rules governing the enrolment of pupils in the different Brussels European Schools since the creation of the Central Enrolment Authority in 2006.
However, on several occasions over the last decade, its scope has been limited. As explained in the relevant Guidelines, adopted annually by the Board of Governors, these changes were each time deemed necessary in view of the growing overcrowding of the European Schools in Brussels.
The Complaints Board’s case-law makes clear that it is open to the Central Enrolments Authority, which introduced the principle of sibling grouping into its rules, to limit the scope of application of this principle in certain situations provided that these limits are established in a proportionate manner, and under precise conditions, bearing in mind the balance which must be sought between the interests of the pupils and their families, on the one hand, and the interest of the organisation and management of the schools, on the other (see, for example, decision 23/11 of the 31st of August 2023, points 9 and 13).
The interpretation of these exceptions does not exclude the possibility that the Schools may review the situation of the pupil concerned at the end of the enrolment phases, provided that this review does not conflict with the objectives of the Enrolment Policy relating to the optimal use of the Berkendael and Uccle sites.

58. This latter exclusion of the regrouping of siblings on the same site of the B1 school results from a specific change to the Enrolment Policy, first adopted for the 2023/2024 school year. It is clear that the Applicants have not challenged the Enrolment Policy of the European Schools as such which has been adopted for the 2024/2025 school year and which follows upon the policy previously adopted by the Board of Governors of the European School and which has been referred to above.

59. The applicants appear to accept that the above policy was adopted but question its logic having regard to the provisions of Article 8.2 thereof. It is clear, however, that the restrictions contained in Article 9. 10 of the Policy and in particular in subparagraph d) thereof, represent a restriction on the overall principle on the regrouping of siblings and does not as such defy logic or common sense but represents a clear limitation of the application of this principle.

60. The Applicants have failed to advance circumstances which can be considered as ‘specific circumstances’ warranting the granting of the transfer request made as the circumstances advanced are excluded from those which may be considered to be specific circumstances within the terms of the Enrolment Policy.

61. Accordingly, the Applicants were limited to the provisions of the Enrolment Policy relating to voluntary transfers and to the limitations of the transfers permitted under that policy. It is clear that they were not entitled to request the transfer in question under the terms of the Enrolment Policy as adopted for the forthcoming school year. The European Schools have indicated in their response to the Applicants’ complaint, the circumstances leading to the adoption of the Enrolment Policy and the constraints on permitting transfers, such as those sought by the Applicants, which could result in undermining the overall policy on the optimal use of the school sites at the B1 and B2 European Schools.

62. While it is clear that in the current transitional circumstances primary classes for the P3 and P4 in the English language section will continue to operate at the Uccle site in the forthcoming year at least and in all probability for a number of years, the admission of transfer requests such as that of the Applicants, even if limited in number at any time during the first or second enrolment phases could result in circumstances undermining the imperative to prevent any doubling up of nursery or primary classes on the Uccle site and to direct any surplus students to the Berkendael site dedicated to welcoming them.

63. Accordingly, it must be concluded that the Applicants have failed to show that the impugned decision or the interpretation or application of the Enrolment Policy “defy both logic and common sense”, or that they are “inconsistent with the objectives outlined in the Policy on Enrolment” or in the context of paragraph 42 above that “the analysis of the European Schools excluding the application of Article 8.2 to site transfers is therefore vitiated by an error of law.” This is so, notwithstanding the difficult circumstances faced by the Applicants as outlined in their initial complaint and as further accentuated in the circumstances further outlined by the Applicants in their Reply.

64. In this circumstance, it must be concluded that the Applicants have failed to show that any of the pleas in law advanced by them are founded in substance and accordingly their complaint must be dismissed as unfounded.