Abstract
The findings of the Complaints Board
(...)
The rules governing the choice of language sections in the European Schools are set out at Article 47(e) of the GRES in the following terms:
(...)
11. The Language Policy of the European Schools, approved by the Board of Governors at its meeting of 9 to 12 April 2019, states that ‘In the European Schools system, the term ‘dominant language’ is used to refer to the language in which a pupil, at the moment of enrolment in the system is the most proficient, especially in education-related domains of language use, and/or in which the child is most likely to perform well academically, linguistically and emotionally in the course of his/her education in the European Schools System’ (Ref: 2019-01-D-35-en-2).
12. The Complaints Board has already ruled on numerous occasions, on the nature, extent and limits of the provisions that apply to determining the language section (on this matter, see decisions 14/17, 15/51, 17/13, 18/27, 19/51, 20/69 and most recently 21/19, 21/28, 22/09 and 23/08).
According to the consistent and settled case law of the Complaints Board on this matter, the following principles can clearly be deduced from the provisions of Article 47(e).
a) A fundamental principle of the European Schools is to teach the mother tongue / dominant language as first language. This principle involves enrolling pupils in the section of their mother tongue / dominant language where such a section exists.
b) The mother tongue / dominant language is the language that the child has the best command of in order to give him or her a solid grounding for a successful school career and subsequently to facilitate the gradual learning of other languages. This fundamental principle corresponds to the child’s best interest (on this matter, see decisions 14/15, 16/20 (point 24) and 21/19 (point 11)).
c) The first language is determined at the time of the child’s enrolment and is, in principle, definitive and applicable throughout the whole pupil’s schooling.
d) The GRES does not grant parents the right to have their child admitted to the language section of their choice, since the responsibility for this pedagogical decision lies solely with the school’s Director, who must determine the appropriate language section for the child through the established procedure (on this matter, see decisions 14/17, 18/21(point 6) and 22/05).
e) The parents are therefore not free to choose the language section; it must be chosen based on a pedagogical assessment carried out by the School in the child’s interest, in light of the information provided by the parents and, in case of doubt or dispute, having regard to the results of the comparative language tests organised and supervised by the teaching team. This decision is a pedagogical decision.
f) The Schools have a certain degree of autonomy in organising the language tests, provided that they are comparable in nature: ‘The language tests must take place in such a way as to enable the results to be compared objectively’ (on this matter, see decisions 17/23 and 21/28).
g) When determining the mother tongue / dominant language at the time of enrolment, each child must be assessed individually, on a case-by-case basis; the result may therefore even vary between siblings (on this matter, see decisions 15/51 (point 11), 19/51 (point 8), 19/55 (point 7), 18/27 and 20/75) ; the mere fact that the brother or sister of a pupil be educated in another language section cannot be considered as a particular circumstance which, in accordance with Article 50 of the GRES, could be taken into account by the Director to derogate from the admission principle of the pupil into the language section corresponding to his/her mother/dominant language (see decision 23/08, point 24).
13. In addition, pursuant to Article 50a.1 of the GRES, ‘The only case in which an appeal may be lodged by the pupil’s legal representatives against decisions taken on an application for enrolment shall be when it has been demonstrated that there has been a procedural irregularity or when a new and relevant fact needs to be taken into consideration’.
Furthermore, it is an established precedent that pedagogical assessments are the exclusive preserve of teachers, for whom the Complaints Board is no substitute, unless there has been a manifest error of assessment, procedural irregularity, a breach of the rules of procedure established for conducting tests or in the case of a new and relevant fact in accordance with Article 50 of the General rules (on this matter, see decisions 17/13 (point 12), 18/12, 19/51 (point 8), 19/26, 19/55 (point 7), 20/12, 20/75 and 21/28, point 11).
14. The Complaints Board notes that the results of the language tests carried out on the 10th of June 2024 leave no doubt that [...]’s command of French is significantly superior to his command of German. The testers noted distinctly better results in his comprehension as well as in the fluidity and the extent of his vocabulary and mastery of grammar. Whereas there were no doubts regarding his ability to integrate the French language section, it was felt that he would have great difficulties integrating the German language section.
15. The Complaints Board also notes that, although it wasn’t obliged to do so, the School allowed [...] to be assessed again, informally, by spending two hours in each of the German and French kindergarten classes on the 25th of June 2024 and that the results of this informal assessment confirmed those of the official test.
16. The applicants’ have not put forward any arguments from which the Complaints Board could conclude that Schools made a manifest error of assessment in considering that [...] should be assigned to the French section or that the testing process was flawed by a procedural irregularity.
17. They argue that the results of the tests were affected by his fear of the German teachers administering the test. Whilst it is always possible that a young child’s performance at a test can be affected by a variety of factors, including the extent to which the child feels at ease with the testers, the fact that a child may have been more at ease with one set of teachers is not a ground for overturning the result, all the more so in this case where the levels of mastery of the two languages measured at the tests differed significantly and where the School even agreed to a second informal assessment which confirmed the results of the tests.
18. As regards the argument based on the more positive assessment of [...]’s knowledge of German by his previous teacher, Ms [A], the Complaints Board recalls that, in accordance with a consistent line of case-law, assessments conducted by third parties, such as teachers at the pupil’s previous school or external speech therapists, cannot be used in place of the assessment of the Director, which alone has the authority to determine the appropriate language section at the time of enrolment (on this matter, see decisions 19/59, 21/28 (point 19), 21/22 (point 14), 21/39 (point 13) and 22/49 (point 12)).
19. The arguments based on [...]’s mother’s lack of knowledge of French, the family’s residence in Germany and German sense of identity are not relevant to the legality of the contested decision taken in application of a well-established policy of the European Schools according to which children are taught in their dominant language.
(...)
21. Finally, concerning the argument, raised for the first time in the reply, that the test was beset by a procedural irregularity in that a parent wasn’t invited to be present for the first ten minutes of each test, as required, by the “Regulations for the organisation of language tests in the nursery classes and primary year 1”, taking account of the autonomy which the Schools enjoy in organizing tests (see point 12 (f) above), of the clear difference in the level of mastery of the two languages demonstrated at the test on the 10th of June 2024 and confirmed at the informal assessment on the 25th of June 2024, as well as the fact that both language tests on the 10th of June 2025 were treated identically (no parent was present at either), the Complaints Board considers that the absence of a parent for the first ten minutes of the tests cannot in any way be characterised as a procedural irregularity affecting the legality of the contested decision.
This argument must therefore be rejected as unfounded (without it being necessary to take a position on its admissibility in the light of Article 18(2) of the Rules of Procedure which provides that “no submission of a new plea in law may be introduced in the course of proceedings, unless it is based on matters of law or of fact which have come to light in the course of the procedure”).