Abstract

Assessment of the designated judge rapporteur
Regarding the merits,
4. This appeal is manifestly unfounded in law within the meaning of Article 32 of the Rules of Procedure for the Complaints Board.

5. It is not contested that the applicants failed to submit their application during the first phase, running from the 7th to the 28th of January 2025, as they were required to under Article 2.20 of the Enrolment Policy.
Nor is it contested that none of the exceptions provided for in Articles 2.25 to 2.27 of the Enrolment Policy apply to their case.
The only question is whether they are entitled to invoke a case of force majeure under Article 2.28 of the Enrolment Policy.
This provision provides that “by way of derogation from Article 2.24, applicants for enrolment will be allowed to submit their applications during the second or third phase, when the applicants are able to establish a case of force majeure on the basis of an exhaustive statement of factual elements and documentary evidence produced – otherwise it will be disregarded – when their application is submitted. A case of force majeure consists of the reality of events that are purely objective and beyond the control of the applicant or of the pupil, of such a nature as to unquestionably impede submission of their application during the first phase”.

6. In order to benefit from a force majeure exception on medical grounds under Article 2.28 of the Enrolment Policy, the applicants would have needed to produce documentary evidence showing that they were so medically incapacitated that they were unable to submit an application for [...] at any time between the 7th and the 28th of January 2025.
They have failed, by a significant margin, to meet the requirements of this standard of proof. Whilst the documents produced show that they were indeed seen by doctors and prescribed medication during this period, there is no evidence at all as to the extent of their incapacity and, in particular, nothing to show that it was “of such a nature to as to unquestionably impede submission of their application during the first phase”. Indeed, the Complaints Board notes that they have not even produced medical certificates exempting them from work.

7. In so far as the applicants argue that the non-admission of their daughter in these circumstances is unfair or disproportionate, the Complaints Board recalls that the right of access to 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 the existence of several European Schools, covering numerous language sections and a very large number of pupils.
As the Complaints Board has ruled in a consistent line of case-law, splitting enrolments into 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 this purpose (see, for example, decisions 21/34 (point 10), 22/33 (point 5) and 23/26 (point 5)).
The Complaints Board has also emphasised, on numerous occasions, that ‘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 deadlines’ (see, for example, decisions 21/34 (point 10), 22/33 (point 5) and 23/26 (point 5)).

8. This appeal must therefore be dismissed as manifestly unfounded.