Abstract

Findings of the Complaints Board

(...)

On the substance,

13. First ground for annulment: that the contested decision is marred by a manifest error of appraisal.

It follows from the terms of Articles 8 and 13 of the Enrolment Policy, cited above at point 2, that parents requesting their child’s transfer must demonstrate the existence of particular circumstances beyond their control which characterise the situation of their child, differentiating it from other cases and creating the need for an appropriate response in order to mitigate the unacceptable consequences that the usual application of the rules would otherwise produce.

In their transfer request to the CEA, the applicants argue, in essence, that because of their son’s medical condition the disruption in the classroom caused by the two special needs pupils was having a particularly detrimental effect on his health and education.

(...) 

The Complaints Board considers that the applicants have made a strong case for ’s transfer, demonstrating how, on account of his medical condition, the disruptive behaviour of the special needs pupils has a particularly detrimental effect on his health and educational development compared to his peers.

The conditions of Article 8 of the Enrolment Policy are thus met. The particularly detrimental effect of the special needs pupils’ behaviour on the applicants’ child clearly amounts to particular circumstances beyond their control, within the meaning of Article 8.5.1, which characterizes his case and differentiates it from others, creating the need for appropriate treatment in order to mitigate the otherwise unacceptable consequences, in accordance with Article 8.5.2.

The CEA’s decision of the 20th of December 2024 fails to properly address these considerations.

The statement that “the medical certificates and attestations you provide do not allow it to be established that attendance at EEB1-BRK is an essential measure for your son's condition, as required by Article 8.5.4. of the Policy” does not adequately answer the applicants’ argument, supported by expert medical testimony. Indeed, it was not because of their son's state of health that the request for a change of the site was made but because of the fact that he suffered greater damage than his classmates to his health and education, on account of his hearing disability, arising out of the disruption caused by the two special-needs pupils.

The CEA’s conclusion that the transfer application is not based on any “particular circumstance as meant by the aforementioned Article 8.5”, and the Schools’ argument, put forward at point 24 of their reply, that all of the pupils in the class are equally affected by the negative aspects of this situation (shouting in class disrupting their concentration), fly in the face of Dr [S]’s expert testimony and are not supported by any evidence.

The reference to unspecified additional measures which, in any event, were only implemented after the adoption of the contested decision, do not adequately address the applicant’s concerns and are not relevant to the legality of this decision.

Finally, since the transfer to another site has the obvious effect of distancing [A] from the source of the disruption, the Schools’ argument that “the applicants do not demonstrate the way in which the Brussels I School - Berkendael site would be able to offer a teaching environment suited to his condition that the Brussels I School - Uccle site does not currently offer” (point 14 of the reply) is manifestly unfounded.

14. It follows that the decision contained in the letter of the President of the CEA of the 20th of December 2024 refusing to transfer [A] from the Uccle to the Berkendael site of European School Brussels I is marred by a manifest error of appraisal and must be annulled.

It is unnecessary in these circumstances to examine the second and third grounds of annulment.