Abstract

Findings of the Complaints Board
(...)
8. The determination of the language section is governed by Article 47 e) of the General Rules of the European Schools, which provides as follows:
(...)
In accordance with the established case law of the Complaints Board, it can be clearly deduced from these provisions that the choice of language section is not left solely to the parents but should result from a pedagogical assessment by the school carried out in the interest of the child in light of the information furnished by the parents and the opinion of experts (See decision 14/17 of 28 July, 2014).
The pedagogical assessment in question is that of the teachers, to which neither the Central Enrolment Authority nor the Complaints Board may substitute their own view, except in the case of a manifest error of appreciation or a violation of the rules of procedure pertaining to the carrying out of such tests.

9. In the instant case, it appears from the file that:
(...)
The Complaints Board does not find any basis in the arguments advanced by the Applicants to show that the tests were irregular, invalid or vitiated in any way.

10. Concerning the Regrouping of siblings, the condition referred to in article 8.2.1 c) of the Enrolment Policy, concerning the existence of the language section (or satellite class) of the pupil for whom the application is being made at the school/site at the required level for which enrolment is requested, is not fulfilled in the instant case, the European School of Brussels I not having a Hungarian section.
The European Schools are required to take account of the superior interest of each pupil, including his or her academic development, in ensuring that he or she will be educated in a language which he/she masters sufficiently in order to follow fruitfully the school programmes.
Accordingly, one may have within the same siblings, children who are educated in different language sections. The Complaints Board has previously indicated in its case-law that the mere fact that a brother or sister of a pupil is schooled in another language section, cannot be considered as a particular circumstance which, in accordance with Article 50 of the General Rules, may be taken into account by the Director to depart from the principle of the enrolment of a pupil in the language section corresponding to that of their maternal/dominant language. (cf. Decision 14/15 of the Complaints Board).

11. Finally, in conformity with Article 8.4.2. g) and h) of the Enrolment Policy occupational or practical constraints on organisation of travel and the location or choice of the place where other members of the group of siblings, other members of the family or other social relations of the child attend school, if [...] is schooled at the Brussels I – Uccle site, may not constitute particular circumstances which ought to be taken into account in granting a priority criterion for the enrolment in the school of first choice.
The practical difficulties if [...] is in another school to that of his brother [...] are essentially circumstances of pure organisation which are expressly excluded from the particular circumstances conferring a priority criterion in the terms of Article 8.4.2 of the Enrolment Policy.

12. In accordance with the settled case-law of the Complaints Board the pedagogical assessment of pupils whether general or with regard to language tests to determine the language section at the time of enrolment, pertains to the exclusive competence of the teachers and may not be subject to jurisdictional control of the Complaints Board except in the case of manifest error of assessment or procedural irregularity or in the case of a new and relevant fact in accordance with Article 50 of the General rules (see decisions 17/13, 18/12, 19/01. 19/55 and 21/39).
It follows from the above that no ground advanced in support of the present application has been established and the Applicants have not established any irregularity affecting the legality of the impugned decision or any error of assessment.
Accordingly, the application can only be rejected as being unfounded.