Abstract

Findings of the designated judge rapporteur
On the legality of the disputed decision,
7. Pursuant to and in compliance with the rules laid down in the “Policy”, the appeal is manifestly unfounded in law within the meaning of the aforementioned provisions of Article 32 of the Rules of Procedure of the Complaints Board.

8. The applicants' sole argument is based on the length and the duration of the journeys between the place of residence (home) and the school assigned.
It should be pointed out, however, that whilst certain particular circumstances can allow applicants for enrolment to obtain a priority criterion with a view to a pupil's enrolment in their first choice school, Article 8.4.2. of the 2021-2022 “Policy” expressly includes amongst those that are not relevant for that purpose the location of the place of residence (home) of the child or of his or her legal representatives and / or the constraints of an occupational nature of the legal representatives' activities or practical constraints on organisation of travel or of family life.
In accordance with the Complaints Board settled and consistent case law (see its decision on appeal 11/23, for example), whilst it follows clearly from the objectives of the Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools that the children of the staff of the European institutions have a right of access to the education provided in those Schools, such a right does not necessarily imply that it must be exercised in the school of their choice.
The location of the place of residence (home) of the child and/or his/her parents and practical constraints on organisation of travel are circumstances which are expressly excluded by Article 8.4.2. of the “Policy”. This exclusion covers all constraints on the organisation of family life.
Whatever the consequences, even cumulative, of such constraints may be, they cannot in themselves constitute a special priority criterion allowing people who invoke it to obtain their child's enrolment at or transfer to the school of their choice.
The reason is that the European School system is not comparable with national education systems, having only a limited number of schools located in cities which are the seats of EU institutions or bodies, with the agreement of the national authorities, and not a network allowing all the pupils concerned within these cities, whatever the location of their home, to be allocated a place in a neighbourhood school, according to criteria specific to applicants for enrolment.
It should be observed, moreover, that in cities where there is only one European School, the distances between it and pupils’ homes may, depending on the case, be as great as those in question in this appeal, although the question does not arise, simply because there is only one school.
When there are several schools in the same city, as is the case in Brussels, the geographical location of each of them cannot, on account of the freedom of the persons concerned to choose their place of residence, be the sole criterion for exercise of the right of access to the education provided in the said schools (decisions of principle of 30 July 2007 (appeal 07/14) and of 5 May 2010 (appeal 10/07)).
The enrolment and transfer rules are necessary, in view of the overcrowding in the European Schools and of the accommodation capacity (objective and reasonable grounds), and applicable to all applicants for enrolment or transfer, without regard to the location of the place of residence (home), which cannot be a priority criterion, in so far as it is dependent on the free choice of parents and over which the CEA has no power.
Since the Complaints Board can only review the legality of decisions contested before it and as the regulatory framework in which the disputed decision was taken very clearly excludes the location of the place of residence (home) and organisational constraints on family and/or occupational life, the Board cannot but dismiss the applicants' arguments based on too great a distance between the place of residence (home) and the school assigned, including the consequences of such a distance, namely the pupil's well-being or ecological considerations, such as those invoked by the applicants.

9. It follows from the above that there is no alternative but to dismiss this appeal.