Abstract

Assessment of the judge rapporteur designated

(...)

On the substance of the Applicant’s appeal,

1) The plea that the impugned decision is in violation of the principle of Belgian civil law and in particular the provisions of articles 373 to 387 (b) of the Belgian Civil Code.

52. The decision of the CEA was taken in the context of the provisions of Articles 1.6 to 1.10 of the Policy on Enrolment in the Brussels European Schools for the 2025–2026 school year (2024-12-D-14-en-2) which provide as follows:

(...)

53. As indicated by the European Schools, the impugned decision of 17 October 2025 in no way seeks to interfere with the jurisdiction of the Brussels Family Tribunal insofar as it is competent to grant sole parental authority to one of the parents. It may also stipulate educational decisions that can only be made with the consent of both parents.

54. As indicated in the case law of the Complaints Board cited by the European Schools, namely Appeal n°16/13 of 15 September 2016, which in particular indicated in paragraph 18 thereof in the context of a judgment of the Family Tribunal of Brussels that it is not for the European Schools (CEA) or the Complaints Board, but for the competent national court (i.e., the family court) to rule on the issues raised in the application insofar as they concern the scope, interpretation, or enforcement of the judgment [of the family court]. The CEA must limit itself to ascertaining that the application for enrolment complies with the applicable regulations, which it did in that case.

55. The Applicant has failed to demonstrate that he has sole parental authority in respect of his son and having regard to the order of the High Court of Justice (Family Division) of the 20th of May 2020 referred to in paragraph 4 hereof, it is clear that that the Applicant has failed to show that he was granted sole parental authority by that court or subsequently by any competent jurisdiction thereafter or that any legal instrument exists whereby he is entitled to exercise sole parental authority in respect of his son such as to make an application for enrolment to the European Schools.

56. In light of the foregoing, it must be concluded that the Applicant’s first ground of appeal is unfounded and must be rejected.

2) The failure to recognise the best interests of the student and his right to education.

57. The provisions of the above cited articles 1.6 to 1.10 of the Policy on Enrolment for 2025/2026 which have been applied by the CEA in the instant case are not unreasonable and they must be considered as legitimate and proportional to their objective in setting out rules for enrolment in the Brussels European Schools which respect the fundamental principles underlying parental authority. Contrary to the Applicant’s contentions, the application of these rules is not in any way discriminatory as they are of general application.

58. The CEA and the European Schools acted promptly in indicating to the Applicant what was needed and it is noted that the Applicant applied at a very early stage to the Belgian courts to obtain the necessary sole parental authority to make the enrolment application to the European Schools.

59. While the Applicant encountered difficulties with the regulatory requirements of the European Schools on the one hand and with the requirements of Belgian law on the other hand, it is not the function of the European Schools or the CEA to provide legal advice. Furthermore, while the Registry of the Complaints Board may give informal guidance to applicants it is not required to provide legal advice or other assistance to applicants.

60. There is no provision in the applicable rules in relation to enrolment for a provisional or temporary enrolment of pupils and the rules cannot be declared to be invalid due to the absence of such a provision. Indeed, the temporary enrolment could give rise to other difficulties and create uncertainty. While the best interests of the child represent a guiding principle, the existence of such is not such to call into question the Policy on Enrolment of the European Schools and does not entitle the CEA to disregard the applicable rules on enrolment, which have been adopted in the best interests of the child.

61. In these circumstances, it must be stated that the Applicant has failed to demonstrate that the best interests of the student and his right to education are such as to invalidate the impugned decision of the CEA which was taken without delay so as to enable the Applicant to address the requirements of the Policy on Enrolment as indicated to him by the CEA in a timely manner or that the requirements of the CEA were in any way excessive of represented an unlawful obstacle to the student’s education in the European Schools.

62. Accordingly, the Applicant’s appeal must be rejected as unfounded.