Abstract

Findings of the Complaints Board

On the pedagogical assessment of the applicants’ son’s best interests,

9. In the context of this appeal, the Complaints Board must assess the legality of the contested decision in the light of the legal arguments put forward by the applicants.

In the absence of manifest error, the Complaints Board would exceed its role if it were to set about appraising the relative merits, from a pedagogical point of view, of allowing students in S6 to take a year out to participate in academic exchanges as compared to applying a strict rule requiring consecutive completion of the S6 and S7 as a condition of access to the Baccalaureate examinations.

The Complaints Board notes that the applicants clearly do not share the School’s opinion that the strict application of the rule requiring the consecutive completion of S6 and S7 should prevail, but it finds no element which would allow it to conclude that this policy judgement is beset by a manifest error of appraisal.

Timeliness of the School’s communications,

10. As regards the applicants’ criticisms concerning the timeliness of the School’s communication with them, the Complaints Board notes that, following the applicants’ (quite late) communication to the School of [A]’s intention to pursue an academic exchange in the 2024-2025 academic year, the School transmitted the essential information that they needed, namely, first, that he would not automatically retain his place in the School, the very same day, and, secondly, that he would have to retake sixth year, the following day. There is no aspect of this rapid and pertinent communication by the School, which is central to this case, which calls into question the legality of the contested decision.

Concerning the criticism that an email sent to the Director of the School on the 13th of February 2024 went unanswered until the 3rd of March 2024, the Complaints Board considers that the time taken was not excessive and, in any event, does not affect the legality of the contested decision.

Legal basis of the requirement concerning consecutive completion of the sixth and seventh years,

11. In so far as the applicants contest the legal basis for the imposition of the requirement concerning consecutive completion of the years S6 and S7, in a context where no rule specifically excludes the possibility of pursuing an academic exchange year, the Complaints Board notes that the rule requiring pupils wishing to take the European Baccalaureate examinations to complete sixth and seventh years consecutively is contained in the regulations adopted by the Board of Governors, entitled “Arrangements for implementing the Regulations for the European Baccalaureate”, in the versions applicable to the 2023, 2024 and 2025 sessions, provides at Article 2.2 that:

"Except for duly justified reasons regular and consecutive attendance at classes, whether in situ or online as specified in Article 26a of the General Rules of the European Schools, in years 6 and 7 of the secondary cycle is a sine qua non condition to be admitted to the European Baccalaureate session. Pupils must have completed without interruption not less than the final two years of secondary education in a European School or in a School Accredited by the Board of Governors."

The requirement of the consecutive completion of sixth and seventh years set out in these rules, adopted by the Board of Governors of the basis of Article 5.2 of the Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools and Article 20 of the Regulations for the European Baccalaureate, clearly prevents a pupil who has completed S6, and then been absent from the school for a year, from continuing directly in S7 unless a duly justified reason has been invoked and accepted by the School (which is not the case here).

The applicants’ intention that their son would always return to the School to complete his studies does not take away from the objective fact that he was absent from School for the 2024-2025 school year and the School was bound, by virtue of Article (3), B, i of the General Rules of the European Schools, to consider that he had left the School.

Allegation of misleading communication,

12. Having examined the file, the Complaints Board cannot share the applicant’s argument that « it can be clearly established that both the School and the EEIB1 Director have repeatedly and deliberately provided incomplete information and arbitrary misinterpretation of the relevant rules ».

As regards the applicants’ argument that the School failed to inform them that the rules allowed exceptions “for duly justified reasons”, the Complaints Board notes that the applicant informed the School by email of the 5th of September 2025, that is to say the very same day that he was informed that the School expected [A] to retake S6 following the year of academic exchange, that he understood that “the rules allow for duly justified exceptions”.

In so far as the applicants consider that the School mislead them when the Director stated that the School had “to follow the enrolment policy, that does not foresee the possibility do be enrolled directly in S7 in after a whole gap year", whereas according to them, nothing in the relevant policy regulates or specifically prohibits enrolment directly to S7, the Complaints Board recalls that, as noted above at point 11, that the rule requiring pupils wishing to take the European Baccalaureate examinations to complete sixth and seventh years consecutively is well established in the regulations adopted by the Board of Governors governing the European Baccalaureate examinations.

Finally, the legality of the contested decision cannot be called into question by the fact that [A]’s report for S6 indicated that he was promoted to S7 since this information was communicated at a time when it was yet known [A] that would be undertaking the academic exchange and when the School was consequently entitled to assume that he would comply with the condition requiring the consecutive completion of years S6 and S7.

Conclusion,

13. As the examination of the arguments put forward by the applicants has not disclosed any illegality affecting the contested decision, their application must be dismissed.