Abstract
Assessment of the designated judge rapporteur
(...)
7. In this case, the applicants have not explained or justified, when applying during the third enrolment phase, why they did not submit their application during the first phase. The reason for this was only given in the present contentious appeal.
In order to benefit from a force majeure exception on medical grounds under Article 2.28 of the EP, the applicants would have needed to produce an exhaustive statement of facts and documentary evidence showing the medical condition of their daughter at the time of the submission in the third phase of enrolment that made impossible the submission in the first phase (from 7 January 2025 until 28 January 2025).
They have failed, by a significant margin, to meet the requirements of this standard of proof as the explanations were given and the first certificate issued for the very first time on 1 September 2025, long after the submission of their enrolment application (on 19 July 2025) and even after the contested decision of the CEA (of 29 August 2025). Moreover, the second medical certificate was only issued (and provided) on 2 September 2025, that is one day after the lodging of the present contentious appeal.
8. It is also important to highlight that the applicants, in their enrolment submission, answered NO to the question “d) The applicant(s) is/are invoking a case of force majeure within the meaning of Article 2.28. of the Policy.”.
It is established case-law that the legality of administrative decisions must be assessed on the date on which they are made.
The decision of the CEA that considered the applicants submission inadmissible, dated 29 August 2025, was taken in accordance with the information provided by the applicants with no mention to the medical condition of their daughter. Thus, the CEA’s decision was taken in compliance with the rules applicable and with the information provided.
9. 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 conditions and 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 conditions and 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)). It goes without saying that the same responsibility applies to complying with the conditions set out in the EP for authorizing an exception to these deadlines.
10. Last but not least, concerning the medical certificates of 1 and 2 September 2025, the Complaints Board observes, firstly, that according to Article 8.5.7 of the EP and to its case-law (e.g. case 13/22, point 14, and case 20/61, point 11), medical certificates drawn after the taking of the contested decision(s) and in view of supporting the appeal against the latter cannot be taken into account if referring to pathologies non invoked previously by the applicants.
Secondly, it appears from the above-mentioned certificates that the applicants were informed about their daughter's medical condition long before submitting on 19 July 2025 the application for enrolment of [A] in the European Schools.
Indeed, the eventual recommendation for a change of school in the first certificate (issued in Athens) is based on “serial clinical evaluations” revealing that after January 2025 “the reported stressors and symptom exacerbations were temporally associated with the current school setting,” and also based on “several scheduled telehealth sessions conducted between February 2025 and the current date” (the Complaints Board has printed in bold).
The second certificate, although hand-dated on 2 September 2025 and “issued upon request for administrative purposes”, refers to a consultation that already took place on 17 July 2025 on the basis of which the issuing general practitioner, after having examined [A], certified that “it is confirmed that since February 2025 she has been presenting symptoms of psychological distress and has been under the care of a specialist psychologist with regular therapy sessions” and further on, that this psychological stress was “strongly related to her current school environment”. For those reasons he then recommended “that a change of school environment” was medically necessary (the Complaints Board has printed in bold).
It follows from the information contained in the said certificates, that the applicants could perfectly well have referred to these medical findings at the time of their application for enrollment, in order to explain and justify in accordance with the relevant provisions of the EP why they did not submit their application during the first phase.
11. This appeal must therefore be dismissed as manifestly unfounded.