Abstract

Assessment / Findings of the Complaints Board

(...)

Regarding the merits

11. As the European Schools rightly points out, one of the fundamental principles of the organization of the studies in the European Schools consists in the steadiness of the L1, which (irrespective whether as mother tongue or dominant language) is determined at the moment of the first enrolment of a pupil at the Schools and, as a matter of principle, can only be changed in exceptional circumstances, namely for “compulsory pedagogical reasons", within the meaning of Article 47 e) of the General Rules.

12. On the basis of common knowledge and experience, the Complaints Board acknowledges that, for expatriated families/pupils, mother tongue and dominant language tend to coincide at the early stages of their expatriation, being the language of the place of origine of the pupil concerned, while, as the years go by, it is, in most cases, either English or the language of the new place of residence which become “dominant” for the pupils.

At the same time, pupils tend to encounter difficulties with their language of origine, feeling much more at ease with the two languages mentioned at the end of the above paragraph. Depending on the particular circumstances of each case (number of years spent at the place of origin, language spoken at home etc.), such difficulties may be quite serious.

And it is perfectly understandable that in these cases parents consider often that it is in the best interest of their child to replace, as above, the initially determined L1 (also, possibly, L2 etc.), and they therefore seek such replacement, having in mind the well-being of their children in the everyday life (including their social insertion in the human environment of the new place of residence) and aiming also at the enlargement their educational and perspectives.

Undoubtedly the requests of this kind appear reasonable, given that the linguistic replacement sought aims precisely at designating as L1 the language which is indeed the dominant language of the pupil concerned.

13. However, as it results from the Complaints Board’s constant case-law, such situations are not to be considered as fulfilling the condition of “compelling pedagogical reasons” on the existence of which Article 47 e) makes dependent the change of language. Indeed, the above concept, to the extent that it introduces an exception, is to be interpreted strictly, i.e. as allowing the change only when “it is indispensable or fundamentally necessary for the pedagogical development of the child” (case 15/47, point 18, iteratively confirmed by the Complaints Board, e.g. in cases 16/14, 16/48, 21/04 – emphasis added).

Each of the above terms has a specific meaning. According to Collins Cobuild Advanced Dictionnary, Heinle 2009, ”indispensable” refers to something which is “absolutely essential and other people or things cannot function without them”, while “necessary” means that “something is needed to happen” (emphasis added).

As the Board has clearly explained in cases concerning linguistic changes, the dominant character of the language in favour of which the change is sought, should constitute, more than a “determining pedagogical criterium” (critère pédagogique determinant), also an “overriding pedagogical ground” (motif pédagogique impérieux) for the change, assessment which, due to its potential severe future consequences for the educational perspective of the pupil requires the taking into account of all relevant elements of the pupil’s file (case 19/48, points 20/21 – emphasis added).

It is therefore not sufficient to claim that the change will facilitate and improve the pedagogical situation of the pupil concerned, in other words that it will present comparative advantages. It has to be contended, with some high standard of proof, that, in absence of the replacement sought, the pedagogical development of the pupil will be blocked and come to an impasse.

Even medical reasons (e.g. the high LDL of the Applicants’ son, for which in any event no casual link whatsoever can be proved with his “language” problem), are of no relevance in this context, given the “pedagogical” character (decisions 19/60 and 21/04) of the decisions on change of languages.

14. It is not on the Complaints Board to research and identify the postulats on the basis of such system, i.e. the pedagogical grounds or other assumptions which led the experts who established the organisation of the European Schoosl studies to opt for the said system. Nor it is in the Complaints Board’s competence to make comparative assessments as to the merits of the current system versus any other system.

On the contrary, it is the Complaints Board’s responsibility to ensure the respect of the fundamental principles and rules governing the operation of the current system and reject any request for change of language which, although appearing prima facie reasonable, runs counter to the said principles and rules.

15. This is the case of the Applicants’ request. Without contesting that their son current dominant language is English (the European Schools have admitted it explicitly) and that its assignment as L1, in replacement of the [X] language, may have some positive pedagogical effects, nothing in the file allows to convincingly claim that, in absence of the requested linguistic change, the Applicant’s son will find himself in the situation described in the above point 13, fourth paragraph in fine, or, a fortiori, and to use the very carefully selected words of decision 19/59, point 22, that he “does not possess the capacity of fruitfully pursuing his schooling in the language in which he was educated from the beginning in the European Schools”. Nor, in absence of any legal basis to this effect, it is possible to share the Applicants’ pleading in favour of differentiation between SWALS and other pupils with regard to changes of language (see above, point 7, last paragraph).

16. In this context the Complaints Board notes, in addition, the pupil’s good notes in [X] and the European Schools’ undertaking to provide him with the necessary educational support.

17. As for the multiple arguments put forward by the Applicants, the Complaints Board observes that many of them seem to proceed from a misapprehension and misconception of the European Schools’ fundamental principle consisting in allowing the change of L1 only under the very restrictive condition of Article 47 e) of the General Rules, as interpreted by the Complaints Board. These arguments are therefore to be dismissed for the reasons explained in the above points 11 to 14.

18. On the contrary, the Complaints Board will reply hereafter to those of the Applicants’ pleas and arguments which are not inherently linked to the abovementioned principle of language steadiness in the educational system of the European Schools, adding at the same time that its decision is without prejudice to any future decision that it may take, in the event, in particular, that the educational support promised by the European Schools proves insufficient and the Applicants reiterate requests for linguistic changes.

19. As to the developmental dyslexia

The Complaints Board notes at the outset that the first Applicant’s request for the linguistic changes sought, of 3 April 2025, does not refer at all to the developmental dyslexia of their son, but it is exclusively founded on the argument that English, and not , was his dominant language. It is only one month later that the diagnosis of the developmental dyslexia occurred, by an opinion dated 9 May 2025, of Ms [C], “pedagogue / pedagogical therapist” in [X], according to her signing of the opinion.

Having said the above, the opinion confirms the dominant character of the English language for the pupil and the difficulties that he encounters with , but it is far from explicitly suggesting any change of language for his studies, let alone from making reference to any absolute need for such changes. On the contrary, the “tips” it suggests presuppose that the linguistic situation remains unchanged.

20. As to the Class Council meeting

According to Article 47 e) of the General Rules, a position by the Class Council establishing the existence of “compulsory pedagogical reasons” is a prerequisite for the decision by the concerned School’s Director authorizing the change of L1. It results clearly from the above provision, as well as from the European Schools’ Language Policy (2019-01-D-35, “Should a change of language … the decision lies with the Director”, page 18/31), and it is also accepted by the Applicants (see in particular page 6/18 of their Reply : “…the position of the Class Council should be …duly considered”), that the said position is of consultative character and by no means binding on the Director, who has the final responsibility for the decision, taking into account all relevant pedagogical factors.

Therefore, the Applicants’ procedural grievances concerning the meeting of the Class Council convened to take a position on their request are ineffective, as they conclude to the fulfilment of the condition of “compelling pedagogical reasons” required (which is far from being established). The Director may still, benefitting from a margin of appreciation, perceive differently the pedagogical reasons concerned and refuse the change of language sought. It is not on the Board to substitute its own appraisal of those reasons to the Director’s appraisal (as it is not on the Complaints Board to censure the pedagogical assessment of the pupils made by teachers, question on which there is a constant case-law - e.g. decision 19/26).

It could only be otherwise in the event of material inaccuracy of the relevant facts or in the event of manifest error of assessment. However, nothing in the Director’s decision of 8 July 2025 (or in the Secretary-General’s confirmation, on 7 August 2025, of the said decision) allows to perceive existence of such flaws.

On the contrary, the Director’s decision explains extensively, and in a coherent manner, why serious pedagogical grounds pleaded in favour of rejection of the request (arguing, inter alia, that “[a]bandoning the native language is generally not advised within our pedagogical approach, as it can potentially undermine the foundation for overall linguistic and academic development”). The Complaints Board notes also the detailed reply of the Secretary-General to the Applicants’ Administrative Appeal and observes in this context that the Contentious Appeal reiterates in substance the Administrative Appeal’s allegations, without addressing specifically the points made by the Secretary General.

21. As to alleged violation of the principles of equal treatment and of legitimate expectations

Without need to recall the principle that “there is no equality in unlawfulness” (e.g. E.U. General Court 13/12/2023, case T-621/22, SB/SEAE, EU:T:2023:805, point 110), the Complaints Board wishes to stress that the principle of equal treatment presupposes “comparable” situations and that the pedagogical situation of pupils are so intensively marked by the specificities of each particular case (regarding in particular their educational difficulties and needs), that it can hardly be question of real comparability. Therefore, the Complaints Board can but dismiss the ground of annulment drawn from the supposed breach of the principle of equal treatment, without addressing the European Schools’ arguments denying the comparability of the pupil’s situation with the situation of the pupils invoked by the Applicants as having “benefited” from a change of language.

With regard to the second limb of this plea, i.e. breach of legitimate expectations, the Complaints Board will again refer to the ECJ case-law, which constantly holds that such breach can only be invoked by a person to which the competent authority has given “precise, unconditional and consistent assurances”, concerning the litigious subject-matter (CJ 27.2.2025, case C-32/24P, OA/European Parliament, EU:C:2025:118, point 67). Clearly, however, the Applicants have not alleged, let alone proved, that they have received such assurances by the competent School or other authorities.