Abstract

Assessment of the designated judge rapporteur
(...)
Regarding the merits,
(...)
10. Concerning the request for a place in the closest school from home,
The applicants seek a place in the French section at the European School, Brussels III - the closest school from home - “for health and well-being reasons”.
(...)

13. The location of the home or the constraints of professional and familial organisation cannot, where applicable, be taken into account in the evaluation of unacceptable consequences that could result from the strict application of the rules of the PE, it being specified in particular that, in accordance with Article 8.4.4. of the PE 2023-2024, ‘any medical complaints from which the child, or one of the people involved in his/her care on a daily basis, might suffer from will be taken into consideration only in so far as evidence is provided that the child’s attendance at the school/site designated is an essential measure for the treatment of the condition from which the person concerned suffers’.
However, in this case, the applicants do not provide any evidence of a medical condition requiring a treatment for which the choice of school would be an essential measure.

14. Firstly, it should be noted that the medical problem – known to the parents at the time of the enrolment application - was not invoked as a priority criterion on submission of the enrolment application (Article 8.4.1. PE) with supporting documents (Articles 8.4.5. and 8.4.7. PE).

15. Secondly, the two medical reports dated 16 and 17 May 2023 do not clearly indicate the nature, frequency and location of the treatment required, for which the choice of the school would be an essential measure, within the meaning of Article 8.4.4 PI 2023-2024.
It is not demonstrated that, without granting the requested priority (Brussels III), the treatment or care cannot be provided, or can be provided but under conditions which impose excessive, unacceptable or disproportionate burdens on the parents and the child (see decisions 18/33, point 5 and 19/18).
According to established case law of the Complaints Board (see decisions 14-08 and 19-02, point 10), it has been consistently held that medical certificates must state that the measure is essential by describing the consequences of attending the assigned school (or original school, in the case of transfers) and outlining why the measure is essential with regard to the treatment received and the precise implications of the opposing measure on the child’s health status (decision 16/36, which relates to a transfer, and confirmed by decisions 18/33, point 5 ; 19/02, point 10; 21/05, point 9, and 22/32, point 8, which relate to enrolments).
Evidence must be provided of a condition that requires treatment for which the place of schooling is an essential measure.
The two medical reports - provided after the disputed CEA’ decision - do not refer to any treatment other than the priority sought by the applicants and only recommend that the child attend a school close to home, to avoid experiencing excessive fatigue, having to get up early etc., on the grounds of the child’s well-being.
Nevertheless, it must be acknowledged that needing sleep is not a condition requiring treatment for which the place of schooling is an essential measure: all children need to be rested to be in top form. [...]’s situation is no different from that of other children of the same age.
Therefore, this sleep requirement cannot be accepted as a particular circumstance that characterises [the child]’s situation and differentiates it from any other case which ‘requires appropriate treatment to mitigate the unacceptable consequences which the rules of this Policy would otherwise have had’ (Article 8.4.2. PE 2023-2024).

16. In conclusion, the CEA did not fail to comply with the provisions of the PE 2023-2024. The Complaints Board has not identified the existence of a procedural irregularity affecting the legality of the disputed decision, nor that a new and relevant fact needs to be taken into consideration, nor the existence of a manifest error of assessment.
The appeal can therefore only be dismissed as unfounded.