THE BACKGROUND TO THE COMPLAINT

1. The complainants complain on behalf of their fourteen-year-old daughter, who is enrolled at the Brussels-1 ( Uccle) European School. She is in Class 4EnA and is having difficulties keeping up in geography and history lessons, which are taught in French - a language she only started learning in 2007. The school has refused to accept Maltese, an official EU language, as her mother tongue. Generally speaking, the Maltese language is not accepted as a mother tongue at the European Schools.

2. According to the complainants, the Board of Governors of the European Schools should not have accepted the 2005 request by the then Maltese Delegation, to put Maltese students in the English section and adopt English, instead of Maltese, as their mother tongue. This decision was taken at the Board of Governors' meeting of 31 January and 1 February 2006 and was binding on all Maltese students who entered the European Schools at a later stage, irrespective of their wishes.

3. On 8 January 2008, the complainants sent an e-mail to the fourth year coordinator of the Brussels-I European School, requesting that their daughter be enrolled as a SWALS (Student without a Language Section) student, having Maltese as Language I (mother tongue) and English as Language II (working language). The coordinator replied on 10 January 2008, explaining that this was not possible, because the Maltese language cannot be studied as Language I in the European Schools. However, Maltese students are able to study Maltese as Language III or IV, or as a complementary course.

4. On 11 January 2008, the complainants addressed an e-mail to the Cabinet of Commissioner Orban, in which they explained their daughter's situation. They stated that the School authorities were not willing to change their daughter's time-table and refused their request to have her enrolled as a SWALS.

5. On 23 January 2008, the complainants wrote to the Headmaster of the Brussels-I European School, Mr K.. They outlined their opinion that the European Schools are discriminating against Maltese students, as it is not possible for them to study Maltese as Language I. The complainants stated that they wished to inform him of their views and intentions before getting in contact with the Secretary-General of the European Schools.

6. On 25 January 2008, Mr K. replied explaining that, at the request of the Maltese Government, the Board of Governors of the European Schools had approved, at its meeting of 31 January and 1 February 2006, the proposal that special arrangements used for teaching Irish would also be applied for teaching Maltese in the European Schools. Furthermore, the Headmaster explained that decisions taken at the level of the Board of Governors cannot be changed by the school and that, at that time, the majority of Maltese parents were in favour of this decision.

7. On 29 January 2008, the complainants sent a letter to the Secretary-General of the European Schools, Mrs C. In their letter, they explained their daughter's difficult situation, who, like every other pupil of the European Schools, has to study certain courses in Language II (French in her case), from the third year of secondary school onwards. They stated that she was being discriminated against for the simple fact of being Maltese. They also argued that the situation of the Maltese language goes against certain objectives and principles of the European Schools. They asked the Secretary-General, without going into the merits of the decision taken by the Board of Governors regarding the Maltese language, to raise this matter again with the Board of Governors.

8. On 8 February 2008, the Deputy Secretary-General of the European Schools, Mr F., replied explaining that the class council (responsible for the promotion of a student) has the possibility to promote a student even if certain results, such as courses taught in Language II, turn out to be unsatisfactory. He also stated that it is not for the Secretary-General to ask the Board of Governors to modify a decision, which has been taken according to the proposal of the Member State concerned, in this case Malta.

9. On 22 February 2008, Mr C., Director-General of the Commission's Directorate-General for Personnel and Administration (DG ADMIN) replied to the complainant's e-mail of 11 January 2008, sent to the Cabinet of Commissioner Orban. He pointed out that the Irish and Maltese languages have a special status within the European Schools. More particularly, Maltese can be studied as an Additional Language, as Language II under certain conditions and also as Language III. He further pointed out that the school provides the necessary learning support to students who have language difficulties with certain subjects. He added that the decision taken by the Board of Governors on 31 January and 1 February 2006, on the status of the Maltese language, was fully in line with the Maltese Delegation's proposal to the Board of Governors.

10. On 26 February 2008, the complainants wrote to Mrs B., Head of Unit of the DG ADMIN service dealing with the European Schools. In their letter, they complained about the status given to the Maltese language in the European Schools and asked if the Board of Governors was in a position to change the decision taken in 2006.

11. On 29 February 2008, Mrs B. replied to the complainants, suggesting that if they wanted this decision to be reconsidered, they had to contact the Secretary-General of the European Schools, who is responsible for preparing the agenda of the Board of Governor's meetings, in collaboration with the Presidency of the European Schools.

THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE INQUIRY

12. In their complaint to the Ombudsman, the complainants made the following allegation and claim:

1. The fact that the Maltese language is not accepted as a mother tongue at the European Schools in general and in the Brussels-1 European School in particular constitutes discrimination.
2. The Commission should deploy its efforts within the Board of Governors to change this.

THE INQUIRY

13. The complaint was forwarded to the Commission for an opinion. The Commission sent its opinion on 1 September 2008 and the complainants sent their observations on 14 September 2008.

THE OMBUDSMAN'S ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS

A. Alleged discrimination against Maltese pupils at the European Schools and claim to have this changed
Arguments presented to the Ombudsman

14. The complainants alleged that, by not accepting the Maltese language as a mother tongue at the European Schools in general, and in the Brussels-1 European School in particular, the European Schools are discriminating against Maltese pupils. They claimed that the Commission should use its position within the Board of Governors to change this. Additionally, they pointed out that Maltese is an officially recognised EU language and should be accepted as a mother tongue just like all other EU languages. Furthermore, they highlighted that other students, who do not have a language section (such as Slovenians, Lithuanians and Latvians) are put in their preferred language section, but still retain their mother tongue and study other subjects in the language of their chosen section.

15. According to the Commission, the Maltese language is not discriminated against for the following reasons:

1. The European School system is based on the Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools. Malta and the Commission both signed this intergovernmental agreement. The Board of Governors of the European School system is the supreme organ taking decisions. All Member States, including Malta and the Commission, are represented by their respective Delegation and have an equal vote;
2. All Maltese pupils can follow an extracurricular Maltese mother tongue course at all levels of education in the European Schools. The Brussels-I European School is no exception to this rule; and
3. In the event that a Member State has more than one official EU language, it can make a proposal to the Board of Governors of the European Schools on how the official languages of this Member State should be considered. This was already the case in 1980 and 1983 when the Board of Governors approved a proposal by Ireland, stating that "Irish should be made available as Language III for those pupils who might so wish and that for those Irish pupils who prefer to choose another Language III, Irish should continue to be available as an extracurricular subject, supplementary to the normal timetable. Only one course will, however, be established for these two categories of pupils. This course will be the continuation of the Irish taught in the nursery section, the primary section and the first year of the secondary section."

16. In 2005, the Maltese Delegation proposed to the Board of Governors of the European Schools that both of Malta's official languages, namely, Maltese and English, should be taught to Maltese pupils, in accordance with the wishes of the Maltese parents. This proposal clearly stated that the Maltese parents were in favour of enrolling their children in the English language section, as long as extracurricular Maltese mother tongue courses (namely, the same arrangement as for Irish taught to Irish pupils) would made available. They also considered that an education taught in three languages (English, Maltese and French or German) from the start would only be to the benefit of the Maltese pupils, who would consequently be able to express themselves in two international languages, as well as in their mother tongue, Maltese.

17. The Commission pointed out that all of the Maltese Delegation's wishes regarding the language training of the Maltese pupils have been fulfilled, even though this has incurred an extra cost for the European Schools and, indirectly, for the Commission's budget.

18. Moreover, the Commission believes that a Member State is best placed to define the status of its national official EU languages. Therefore, it expressed no opinion on the status a Member State wants to give to its national languages, but noted that it can only take into consideration the logistical, organisational and financial aspects of a Member State's proposals. For this reason, the Commission expressed no comments when the proposal regarding the status of the Maltese language was approved by the Board of Governors in its meetings of 31 January and 1 February 2006.

19. Furthermore, it is the decision of that Secretary-General of the European Schools, in collaboration with the Member State holding the Presidency of the European Schools, to prepare the draft agenda for each Board of Governors' meeting, taking into account the possible proposals made by the Delegations of the Member States.

20. The Commission concluded that it would not propose to the Board of Governors to change the current status of the Maltese language, as this arrangement is completely in line with the wishes of the Maltese Delegation and of the vast majority of Maltese parents. It is for the Maltese Delegation to decide whether to make a new proposal regarding the status of the Maltese language.

21. In their observations, the complainants pointed out that, apart from the fact that the issue is a matter of principle, the decision proposed by the Maltese Delegation at the time, pressured by a handful of parents who all had primary school children, had negative repercussions on their daughter's education. During her first year at the European School, she had to 'study' history and geography in French, a language which she did not understand. She was however expected to follow lessons and pass tests in order to be moved up a class the following year. As a result, she was effectively not able to learn any history and geography during that year. In addition, no place on the official school time table is found for learning Maltese, the result being that lessons are scheduled during the lunch break. Both issues constitute an injustice, which should be rectified on grounds of principle and because of the adverse effect they have on the studies of the complainants' daughter.

22. The complainants also felt that the decision proposed by the Maltese Delegation was an imposition on all Maltese students, regardless of their age. No consideration whatsoever was given to future Maltese students who may be enrolled in the European Schools at secondary level.

23. The complainants finally stated that their request has a very simple solution: If it is not possible for the European Schools to offer Maltese as a mother tongue, then Maltese students at secondary level should at least be considered as SWALS as is the case with Slovenians and others who conveniently follow the human sciences in their working language (English) and have the proper number of hours officially allotted for their mother tongue on their timetable, as it should be.

The Ombudsman's assessment

24. Before dealing with the allegation and claim, the Ombudsman would first like to express his understanding and sympathy to the complainants for the difficulties their daughter is facing when studying geography and history in a language, namely, French, which she only started learning in 2007. The Ombudsman hopes that these difficulties can soon be overcome.

25. The Ombudsman notes that the current position of the Maltese language at the European Schools is the result of the Maltese Delegation's proposal to the Board of Governors, and the decision which was consequently adopted by the Board of Governors at its meeting of 31 January and 1 February 2006. More particularly, upon the Maltese Delegation's proposal, it was decided to adopt the same arrangement for the Maltese language as for the Irish language. In practice, this means that Maltese students are in the English section of the European Schools and have English, instead of Maltese, as their mother tongue. Therefore Maltese cannot be studied as Language I or Language II, but only as Language III or as an Additional Language. The Ombudsman notes that the Maltese Delegation's proposal to the Board of Governors appears to have had the support of the majority of the Maltese parents.

26. A s consistently held by the Community Courts, the principle of non-discrimination requires that comparable situations should not be treated in a different manner and that different situations should not be treated alike unless such treatment is objectively justified. In the present case, it appears that when a Member State has more than one official EU language, it is up to that Member State to make a proposal to the Board of Governors of the European Schools on how its official languages should be treated within the European Schools. It appears reasonable to assume that the Member State concerned is best placed to make such a judgement. This implies that there could only be discrimination if the proposal made by the Maltese Delegation had been treated differently than a similar proposal made by another Member State also having more than one official EU language. However, there is nothing to suggest that this was the case.

27. On the basis of the above considerations, the Ombudsman finds no discrimination with regard to the fact that the Maltese language is not accepted as a mother tongue at the European Schools . There is therefore no instance of maladministration by the European Commission. The complainants' claim must therefore necessarily fail as well.

28. The Ombudsman notes that, in their observations, the complainants proposed an alternative solution, namely, that Maltese students at secondary level could be considered as SWALS as in the case of Slovenians and others who conveniently follow the human sciences in their working language (English) and have the proper number of hours officially allotted for their mother tongue on their timetable, as it should be. The Ombudsman notes that this constitutes a new claim on which the Commission has not yet commented. On the basis of Article 2(4) of his Statute which provides that prior administrative approaches have to be made, the Ombudsman will therefore not examine this allegation.

B. Conclusions

On the basis of the Ombudsman's inquiries into the complainant's allegation and claim, there appears to be no maladministration by the Commission. The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

The complainants and the Commission will be informed of this decision.

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

Done in Strasbourg on 8 October 2008