Abstract

Assessment of the designated judge rapporteur
Regarding the merits,
4. This appeal is manifestly unfounded in law under the provisions of Article 32 of the Rules of Procedure for the Complaints Board mentioned above.
In Articles 2.15, 2.16 and 2.18, the 2022-2023 PE provides that:
(...)

5. In view of the aforementioned provisions, parents already in post with the Institutions and who wish to register their child/children in one of the Brussels European Schools for the school year starting in September 2022 must therefore apply within a very narrow window: they must submit their enrolment application between 10 January and 4 February 2022, ‘failing which applications will be inadmissible and will automatically and as of right be rejected, as stated in Article 2.15.
The right to enrol at the European Schools does not exempt the interested parties from complying with the strict deadlines set for submitting enrolment applications, which are particularly important in Brussels given that there are several European Schools, covering numerous language sections and a very large number of pupils. Splitting enrolments into two phases and imposing strict deadlines for the submission of applications are essential measures for smoothly managing the Brussels European Schools and optimising the available places; they are necessary, reasonable and proportionate to their purpose.
As the Complaints Board has clarified on numerous occasions, ‘It is therefore the responsibility of the parents affected by this provision to act with due care, taking all of the necessary precautions to ensure that the application is submitted within the deadline’ (see decisions 19/32 (point 13), 20/58 and 20/64).
All parents who wish to enrol their child/children in the European Schools – or in other schools – must complete the necessary administrative steps while also fulfilling their work and family roles (see decision 19/44, point 10).

6. In addition, it is the responsibility of the applicants pleading a case of force majeure to justify the submission of their application during the second phase by providing evidence, upon the submission of the application, of the purely objective events beyond their control of such a nature as to unquestionably impede, against their wishes, the submission of their application during the first phase.
It should be remembered that, in this respect, the legality of an administrative decision is assessed when the decision is made, according to the elements that the administrative authority knows or should know at that point in time (see decisions 16/24 (point 7), 16/33 (point 14), 19/21, 19/36, 19/39 and 21/21).
Force majeure is only admissible when an objective situation beyond the control of the applicants has prevented them from submitting the enrolment application during the first phase; according to the established case law of the European Court of Justice, this situation is characterised by the occurrence of unusual and unforeseeable circumstances, beyond the control of the party by whom it is pleaded, the consequences of which could not have been avoided even if all due care had been exercised (see, for example, Judgment of the Court of Justice of 5 February 1987, 145/85, Denkavit/Belgian State).
It is commonly accepted that force majeure is an unpredictable, unavoidable, insurmountable event beyond the control of the applicant that prevented him from fulfilling his obligation.
An event or situation that is the result of a voluntary action or inaction by the person pleading the case of force majeure is therefore not a case of force majeure.

7. Therefore, within the above regulatory framework, the elements that the applicants plead as constituting a case of force majeure must be examined.

8. In this case, it is undisputed that the enrolment application was submitted during the second phase, when it should have been submitted during the first phase.
The decision to stay in Brussels belong entirely to the applicants – or to one of them.
The circumstances invoked do not have the characteristics of a case of force majeure, i.e. being beyond the control of the party pleading the case of force majeure, being unforeseeable and being of a nature as to prevent the applicant from fulfilling his obligations.
None of the elements presented by the applicants is likely to seriously call into question the legality of the contested decision, since it dismisses the case of force majeure on the basis of Article 2.15 of the 2022-2023 PE.
In view of the above, the Complaints Board can only find that, by strictly applying the aforementioned provisions of the 2022-2023 PE, and on the basis of the elements and documents in its possession at the time at which its decision was made, the CEA could only reject the enrolment application on the grounds of its inadmissibility.
This appeal can therefore only be dismissed as unfounded.