Abstract

Findings of the Chairman of the Complaints Board giving a ruling on the application following summary proceedings
Admissibility of the application for interim measures
11. It follows from the aforementioned provisions that an application for suspension of enforcement or other interim measures may be allowed where the urgency of the matter so justifies and there is a plea in law likely, at that stage of the investigation, to give rise to serious doubts as to the legality of the disputed decision and, in the circumstances of the particular case, there is a real risk of absence of effectiveness of the right to appeal.
Those three conditions are, in accordance with their wording, cumulative and not alternative.
Furthermore, if they are met, the taking into consideration of the interests involved must not run counter to the measure requested.
“It might also be added, with respect to the nature of and the need for the measures requested, that as the Complaints Board held in its order of 6 August 2014 (appeal 14/37R) that “the very purpose of summary proceedings, as organised by the aforementioned provisions of the Rules of Procedure, is to allow, in all cases where the urgency of the matter so justifies, expeditious suspension of an administrative decision contested by the applicant or any other interim measure justified by the circumstances” so as thus to ensure the effectiveness of the decision on the substance of the appeal (orders 16/50R, point 15 and 19/51R, point 9).

12. Finally, it should be noted that the judge giving a ruling on an application following summary proceedings, cannot express considerations on the substance that might prejudge the decision on the main appeal.
That having been made clear, it will be examined whether or not, in this particular case, the conditions for lodging the appeal in summary proceedings have been met.

13. In the case in point, there is clearly no urgency justifying the suspension of either the School’s decision on the language section, or the CEA’ s decision dated 30 April 2021: the subject of this dispute is determination of the language section in which the applicants' daughter should be enrolled for the 2021-2022 school year, starting on 1 September 2021.
The application for interim measures, which essentially reproduces the arguments put forward in the main appeal, cannot be regarded as setting out elements capable of justifying urgency, as required by Article 34 of the Rules of Procedure.
Even if the Complaints Board decided to suspend the contested decisions, this would not accelerate the 'skipping a school year' procedure for obtaining the documents from the Czech authorities.
In any case, the School has undertaken to review its decision regarding the language section in the light of the documents to be produced by the applicants before the end of August.
If the said documents are brought to the School's attention by the end of the summer, and before the start of the school year, a new decision will be taken by the School management. It should be pointed out here that the pedagogical decision on the pupil's dominant language remains in any event within the exclusive competence of the school management.
Hence, either enrolment in the Czech section will be agreed by the School based on the documents produced by the applicants, or the School will decide to maintain enrolment in the French section, and the applicants will then be entitled to lodge an appeal against this new decision by the School.
In any event, the Complaints Board will in the meantime have delivered a decision on the main appeal.
The investigation of the main appeal will indeed be completed by the end of July and a decision of the Complaints Board can be expected before 1 September 2021 (there will be no public hearing because of the continuing restricted conditions due to the pandemic).
In addition, this timing reduces considerably and even rules out the risk of absence of effectiveness of the right to appeal.
Since at least one (or two) of the three prerequisites for the granting of an interim measure (suspension of the disputed decision) are not fulfilled, there is no alternative but to dismiss this appeal lodged in summary proceedings, without there being any need to rule on the third condition, namely the existence of a serious doubt as to the decision’s legality.
This appeal lodged in summary proceedings is therefore hereby dismissed, without prejudice to examination of the main appeal, for which inter partes proceedings are under way.

Legal and other costs
14. Article 27 of the Rules of Procedure provides that: “The unsuccessful party shall be ordered to pay the legal and other costs of the case if they have been applied for by the other party. However, if the particular circumstances of the case so warrant, the Complaints Board may order the latter party to pay the legal and other costs, or may order that they be shared between the parties. […) If costs are not claimed, the parties shall bear their own costs.”.
Pursuant to those provisions, and in view of the applicants’ claims, it should be decided that each party will bear its own costs.