Abstract

Assessment of the designated judge rapporteur
Regarding the merits,
4. Though certain particular circumstances allow an applicant for enrolment to obtain a priority criterion with a view to the enrolment of a pupil at the school of first preference, Article 8.4.2. of the PE expressly identifies those which are not relevant for this purpose, notably the location of the home or place of residence of the child and/or of his/her legal representatives; constraints due to the professional activities of the legal representatives and practical constraints on the organisation of travel.
In this regard, it is important to remember that, in accordance with the established case law of the Complaints Board, though it is clear from the objectives of the Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools that the children of employees of European institutions have a right to access the education provided by these Schools, such a right does not necessarily imply that it be exercised in the school of their choice, based solely on the location of their home or their place of work, the organisation of travel and professional or practical constraints relating to the organisation of familial life (see decisions 16/23, 18/10, 19/46, 20/26, 21/06, 21/14, 21/15 and 21/16).
Whatever the consequences, even cumulative, that such constraints may have, these cannot constitute in and of themselves a particular priority criterion allowing those who invoke them to obtain the enrolment of their child in the school of their choice.
The enrolment rules are necessary in view of the overcrowding in the European Schools and the accommodation capacities (reasonable and objective grounds) and apply to all applicants for enrolment, regardless of the location of the home, which cannot be a priority criterion as it depends upon the free choice of the parents, and over which the CEA has no power (see decision of principle 07/14, point 35: ‘While it can be readily accepted that an excessive distance between the school and the home may be particularly detrimental to a child of nursery or primary school age, it must be stated that the Board of Governors of European Schools has no control over the location of said Schools, which requires the agreement of the host Member State, or over the location of the pupils’ homes, which depends exclusively on their parents). Therefore, where there are several schools in the same city, as is the case in Brussels, the geographic location of each of them cannot, on the grounds that the parties concerned are free to choose the location of their home, constitute the exclusive criterion for the exercise of their right to access the education provided by these schools.
The European School system, which cannot be compared to national educational systems, has a limited number of establishments located in cities with European institutions or bodies as agreed with the national authorities and not a network within these cities allowing for all pupils concerned, no matter the location of their home, to be provided with education in their vicinity, according to the criteria provided by the applicant for enrolment or transfer.
Furthermore, it is worth noting that, in cities where there is only one European School, the distances between this school and the pupils’ homes may, on a case-by-case basis, be as great as those presented in this appeal, though the issue may not be raised due to the fact that there is only one school.

5. It is for all of these reasons that Article 8.4.2. of the PE provides that the location of the home or the professional or practical constraints for the organisation of familial life cannot be considered a relevant particular circumstance for granting a priority criterion, no more so than the difficulties in organising transport between the home and the school.
Because the Complaints Board can only assess the legality of the decisions contested before it, and because the regulatory framework within which the disputed decision was taken clearly excludes the location of the home and the constraints on the organisation of familial or professional life, the Board must reject the applicants’ argument that the distance between the home and the assigned school is too great.
It follows that the applicant’s arguments cannot be accepted as well-founded given that they are essentially based on the location of the School in relation to their home or the father’s workplace and the consequences thereof, direct and indirect.