Strasbourg, 25 October 2006

Dear Mr S.,

On 20 March 2006, you submitted a complaint to the European Ombudsman against the European Commission. The complaint concerns the criteria for admission to the European Schools.

On 10 May 2006, I forwarded your complaint to the President of the European Commission. On 18 July 2006, I received the Commission's opinion, which I forwarded to you with an invitation to make observations, if you so wished. No observations have been received from you.

I am writing now to let you know the results of the inquiries that have been made.

THE COMPLAINT

According to the complainant, the facts are, in summary, as follows.

In 2003, the complainant requested information about admissions, for the school year 2003-2004, to the European School Brussels II. The School (i) replied that, as with the European School Brussels III, it only accepted children to the German, English and French sections from parents working in a European Institution; (ii) suggested that the complainant contact the European School Brussels I, which could perhaps be able to consider his application; and (iii) informed him that the enrolment period would be from 31 March to 11 April 2003.

On 31 May 2005, one of the European Schools in Brussels refused admission of the complainant's daughter to the fourth year of the primary cycle.

On 22 August and 20 September 2005, the complainant wrote to the School and requested a meeting. Although he understood that the priority for enrolment was given to children of civil servants of the European Institutions, he wished to discuss his family's situation.

On 21 September 2005, the School confirmed that it could not accept the complainant's child since there was "no space available".

On 6 March 2006, the complainant requested by e-mail from the European School Brussels III, two registration forms in English for the primary cycle and the 'maternelle'.

On 7 March 2006, the School replied that it could not give a favourable reply to the complainant's request since it had a strict enrolment policy and could not, therefore, accept any new applications from non-EU officials.

On 20 March 2006, the complainant wrote to the European School Brussels III and asked whether any 'Category III' children would be admitted for the year 2006‑2007. On the same day, the School confirmed by e-mail that there would be no admissions for that category.

On 20 March 2006, the complainant lodged a complaint with the Ombudsman.

He alleged that admission criteria to the European Schools are not transparent and not fair.

In support of this allegation, the complainant argued that although "Category III" pupils were admitted to European Schools every year, his children were refused admission to that category in the European Schools in Brussels for the year 2006-2007.

THE INQUIRY

The Commission's opinion

The Commission's opinion can be summarised as follows.

The Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools(1) states in Title I ("The European Schools"), Article 1, that "[t]he purpose of the Schools is to educate together children of staff of the European Communities. Besides the children covered by the Agreements provided for in Articles 28 and 29, other children may attend the Schools within the limits set by the Board of Governors. [...]"(2).

The decision to admit children of non-EU staff to the European Schools is taken each year on the basis of the actual number of pupils and the Schools' capacity.

The overcrowding in the European Schools in Brussels has led the Directors of the European Schools, together with the Office of the Secretary-General, to decide on a restrictive enrolment policy for the children of non-EU staff ("Category III"). At present, two out of the three existing European Schools in Brussels have exceeded the limits originally foreseen and have reached, or are reaching, their capacity limits. The Commission, which is not a deciding authority on the issue, supported this restrictive enrolment policy.

In October 2005, the Directors of the European Schools decided that, for the school year 2006-2007, (i) only siblings of children of non-EU staff ("Category III" pupils) would be accepted and (ii) present pupils transferred from another European School could be considered for admission(3). The refusal to enrol the children of the complainant was, therefore, taken in line with this decision, which depends on the local situation in Brussels (the conditions are similar in Luxembourg). In other locations, where there are European Schools, children of non-EU staff are admitted.

The restrictive enrolment policy equally affected children of the EU staff. They are still accepted in the European Schools system, but not necessarily in the school of their choice in Brussels.

As far as transparency was concerned, the policy on enrolment was fully available to the public on the homepage of the European Schools(4).

In the Commission's view, the complainant's allegation of lack of transparency and unfairness was, therefore, unfounded.

The complainant's observations

No observations have been received from the complainant.

THE DECISION

1 Preliminary remark

1.1 According to Article 195 of the EC Treaty, the Ombudsman is empowered to conduct inquiries into instances of maladministration in the activities of the Community institutions or bodies, with the exception of the Community Courts acting in their judicial role.

1.2 The Ombudsman recalls that he has consistently taken the view that the European Schools are not a Community institution or body. However, the Ombudsman is competent to deal with complaints concerning European Schools, insofar as the complaint is directed against the Commission which has, in the Ombudsman's opinion, a general responsibility arising from its representation on the Board of Governors of the European Schools and the provision of funding to the Schools by the Communities, but not extending to matters of internal management(5).

2 The allegation of lack of transparency and unfairness

2.1 The complainant alleges that admission criteria to European Schools are not transparent and not fair. In support of this allegation, the complainant argues that, although "Category III" pupils were admitted to European Schools every year, his children were refused admission to that category in the European Schools in Brussels for the year 2006-2007.

2.2 In its opinion, the Commission states that the refusal of admission of the complainant's children was in line with the decision, taken in October 2005 by the Directors of the European Schools together with the Office of the Secretary‑General, concerning the restrictive enrolment policy for children of non-EU staff for the year 2006-2007, supported by the Commission and available to the public on the European Schools' website (under the title "Policy on enrolment in the European Schools in Brussels for the 2006-2007 school year").

2.3 The Ombudsman forwarded the Commission's opinion, including the document on the policy on enrolment, to the complainant with an invitation to submit observations. No observations have been received from the complainant.

2.4 The Ombudsman examined the "Policy on enrolment in the European Schools in Brussels for the 2006-2007 school year", enclosed with the Commission's opinion. He notes that that Policy (i) refers to "major problems of space currently facing the European Schools in Brussels" and (ii) provides for a strict enrolment policy to be followed for the school year 2006-2007. The Ombudsman takes particular note of point 1 of the above-mentioned Policy, according to which "[t]he Directors have decided together with OSG [...] not to accept any category III pupils before the end of the current school year. Following that date only siblings of present pupils and pupils transferred from another European School may be considered for admission"(6).

2.5 On the basis of the above, the Ombudsman considers that the Commission's position in support of the policy on enrolment appears to be reasonable and fair. The Ombudsman also takes the view that the criteria applied, in accordance with such policy, appear to be reasonable in the light of the purpose of the European Schools as defined by the Convention defining their Statute.

2.6 Finally, the Ombudsman checked the website provided by the Commission and found the document related to the policy on enrolment in the European Schools in Brussels for the 2006-2007 year.

2.7 On the basis of the above, the Ombudsman therefore finds no maladministration by the Commission as regards the complainant's allegation.

Conclusion

For the reasons stated in point 2.7 above, the Ombudsman considers that no instance of maladministration has been found as regards the complainant's allegation.

The Ombudsman therefore closes the case.

The President of the Commission will be informed of this decision.

 

P. Nikiforos DIAMANDOUROS

---

(1) OJ 1994 L 212.

(2) Articles 28 and 29 (Title VII "Special Provisions") concern the so-called "category II pupils" for which there are special agreements with organisations or other institutions.

(3) "Policy on enrolment in the European Schools in Brussels for the 2006-2007 school year" (712-D-2005-en-2, 16/11/2005). This document and the "Addendum explaining the policy on enrolment in the European Schools in Brussels for 2006-2007" (2006-D-35-en-1, 18/07/2006) were enclosed in the Commission's opinion sent to the Ombudsman.

(4) The Commission provided a related address (http://www.eursc.org/SE/html/En/IndexEn_home.html).

(5) See Case 199/23.10.95/EP/B/KT (1996 Annual Report, pp. 35-36), available on the European Ombudsman's website (http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/report96/pdf/en/rap96_en.pdf);

Case 989/97/OV (1997 Annual Report, p. 20), available on the European Ombudsman's website (http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/report97/pdf/en/rap97_en.pdf); and Cases 845/2002/IJH, OI/5/2003/IJH, and 2813/2004/(IP)BU, available on the European Ombudsman's website (http://www.ombudsman.europa.eu/decision/en/default.htm).

(6) The Ombudsman understands "OSG" as referring to the Office of the Secretary-General and "current" as referring to the school year 2005-2006.