Abstract

Assessment / Findings of the Complaints Board

(...)

10.

Indeed, as the ES correctly pointed out, for a request for review to be upheld, the Appellants need to prove the occurrence of a new fact or, more precisely, the coming to light of a fact of which neither themselves nor the CEA were aware at the moment of taking the initial decision and, in addition, to prove that such fact could have a decisive impact on the disputed issue, being regarded as a “particular circumstance” within the meaning of Articles 14.2.2 and 8.5 of the Policy on Enrolment.

This condition is clearly laid down in Art.14.2.2 of the Policy, which reads as follows : Applications for review of decisions of the CEA may be made by applicants, provided that they have not lodged a contentious appeal, when a new fact, beyond their control, of which neither the applicants for enrolment nor the CEA itself were aware, comes to light after the first decision has been taken. This new fact must have a decisive impact on the application’s handling and be regarded as a particular circumstance within the meaning of Article 8.5. of the Policy on Enrolment.

11.

It is obvious that such “new” fact does not exist in the present case. The Appellants have not claimed, let alone demonstrated, that it was only after their first applications for the year 2025-26 that they became aware of the problematic medical conditions of their children and of the impact of such conditions on issues related to their schooling (or of any deterioration of such conditions or alteration of such impact). On the contrary, at least for [A], there are insurance and medical certificates dating from 2022 and 2024, produced by the Appellants themselves.

12.

In absence of a “new fact”, of the type required by the above provision of the Policy on Enrolment, the Appeal is to be dismissed, without need for the Board to examine the additional condition laid down in the said provision of the Policy, i.e. that the new fact “must have a decisive impact on the application’s handling and be regarded as a particular circumstance within the meaning of Article 8.5. of the Policy”, or any other issue.

13.

However, for the sake of completeness, the Board will proceed to the following five additional considerations.

14.

Article 8.5.3 of the Policy on Enrolment (to which the above provision of Article 14.2.2 of the said Policy refers) explicitly mentions, as deprived of relevance, criteria like the location of the family home and its distance from the prospective School, while it results clearly from the case-law of the Board that those criteria are of limited value compared to other criteria related to the constrains of the good organization of the schooling activity (e.g. case 19/04, point 5).

Furthermore, the third factor mentioned by the Appellants as pleading in favour of the upholding of their Appeal, i.e. the one related to the strong emotional bond between the brothers (see above point 3), is of no relevance as to the question whether they will be eventually schooled in Brussels II or Brussels I or any other Brussels School, provided that they remain together (which is granted and assured).

The Board also observes that, contrary to the case of [A], there is nothing in the Appeal concerning the medical condition of [B]. The impugned decisions (and the Response)mention that he suffers of motion sickness and of autism, apparently retrieving this information from Appellants’ submissions prior to the impugned decisions. However, the Board notes that the parents did not reiterate this information in their Appeal and fails to see how the said information interacts with their requests.

In addition, it is worth noting that the Appellants had replied by NO in their initial applications’ chapter inquiring about the existence of particular “educational needs” and of special “priority criteria”; on the contrary, it results from their exchanges with the ES that their sole concern was to obtain that their children be admitted in the same School and in its French- speaking section.

Last but not least, concerning the medical certificate of 11/7/2025 for [A], the Board observes, firstly, that according to Article 8.5.7 of the Policy on Enrolment and to its case-law (e.g. case 13/22, point 14, and case 20/61, point 11), medical certificates drawn after the taking of the contested decisions and in view of supporting the Appeal against the latter cannot be taken into account if referring to pathologies non invoked previously by the Appellants, secondly, that the recommendations of the above medical certificate of the 11/7/2025, for [A]’s placement in “small educational groups” and for “[m]odern, well-ventilated buildings…” are not accompanied by any allegation, let alone proof, that this is the case of Brussels II - Evere, contrary to the situation of Brussels I - Berkendael.