Chambre de Recours des Ecoles européennes
The Complaints Board of the European Schools
Die Beschwerdekammer der Europäischen Schulen

Base de données des Décisions
Database of Decisions
Datenbank der Beschlüsse

 

Chambre de Recours des Ecoles européennes - Base de données des Décisions
  Matching results          << New search             

N° de la décision
Decision number
Beschluss Nummer		 24/59
Date de la décision
Decision Year
Jahr des Beschlusses
24-10-2024          (jj-mm-aaaa) / (dd-mm-yyyy) / (tt-mm-jjjj)
Mots clés
Keywords
Stichworte
FR
  • conseil de classe
    		•
    EN
  • class council
    		•
    DE
  • Klassenkonferenz
    		•
    Résumés
    Abstract
    Zusammenfassung
  • Assessment of the Complaints Board
    (...)
    11. It follows from these provisions that the power granted to the Class Council under Article 61.B.5 of the GRES is clearly discretionary and not obligatory (“… the Class Council may waive …”) and that the Class Council has sole competence to judge the appropriateness of applying this provision, waiving the rules of promotion and promoting the pupil despite his or her insufficient results.
    Moreover, this derogation is subject to quite precise conditions: it must be in the pupil’s interest, the situation must be such that there are specific circumstances that differentiate it from other cases (“notably” prolonged absence because of illness) and, most importantly, the pupil must be deemed capable of successfully pursuing his education despite the fact that his results would imply repeating a year.


  • 12. In so far as they concern [...], the minutes of the Class Council meeting show that the possibility of his promotion to S7 on the basis of Article 61.B.5 of the GRES was examined, as his parents had requested.
    (...)
    It follows from the above that, contrary to what the applicants argue, the Class Council did not fail to consider the possible application of Article 61.B-5 of the GRES.
    The possibility of promotion on the basis of Article 61.B.5 of the GRES was envisaged and examined, but rejected by the Class Council, which considered that the pupil was effectively not capable of successfully keeping up with work in the year above. Most of the teachers expressed their doubts about [...]’s ability to follow the courses in S7 due to a lack of effort and study throughout the year, to poor results and to a lack of maturity and motivation.
    Whilst prolonged illness is one of the special circumstances on the basis of which Article 61.B.5 could be applied “if need be”, there is no obligation to promote the pupil just because he had suffered a prolonged illness, without any other pedagogical consideration.


  • 13. The applicants criticize the fact that Article 61.B-5 of the GRES is applied on a case-by-case basis by the Class Councils in what they consider to be a totally discretionary manner, avoiding any attempt at consistency. They claim that the absence of guidelines is a violation of Article 11 of the Convention defining the Statute of the European Schools, which stipulates that the Board of Governors shall lay down the rules governing the promotion of pupils to the next year of study.
    The Complaints Board finds that, contrary to what the applicants argue, the procedure, criteria and rules to be followed for promotion to the year above are provided for in Chapter IX (Articles 55 to 62) of the GRES – which rules are defined and approved by the Board of Governors. The Class Councils must take their decisions, including those concerning the possible application of Article 61.B.5, in accordance with this quite precise and complete legal framework.
    Article 61.B.5 of the GRES provides sufficient detail regarding the factors to be considered by the Class Council in assessing whether it may allow a pupil to be promoted despite low marks in order to take account of a particular situation during the school year being assessed. The fact that this article, which applies to very specific situations, does not refer to the drawing up of guidelines does not reflect a failure to take account of Article 11 of the Convention; nor, in view of the criteria it contains, does it create a situation of arbitrary examination of the pupil’s situation.


  • 14. The applicants also criticize the fact that their son received for this period all grades in all subjects including sport, even though his teacher of sport said he had not seen him since 25th January. The Complaints Board notes that the mark awarded in sport was 5 and so did not penalise their son or have an impact on the decision not to promote him.
    In so far as they argue that despite the prolonged absences linked to his medical condition, their son managed to succeed in almost all compos without any significant difficulties and has been “punished for his medical condition ”being graded “with lower A grades than the Compo results (B grades)”, and that an adequate solution would be the projection on the first semester results and consideration off all the efforts the pupil has invested to overcome the drawbacks of the medical condition by attempting to sit and write all compos despite the prolonged absences, the Complaints Board recalls that, in accordance with Article 62.1 last § of the GRES, “The Class Council has sole discretionary power in respect of assessment of pupils’ abilities, the award of a mark for an examination, test or a piece of work done during the school year and assessment of the particular circumstances referred to in Article 61. B.5. Appeals may not be lodged against these assessments’.


  • 15. The foregoing points 11-14 (and in particular points 12 and 13) show clearly that no procedural illegality committed by the Class Council can be identified. It is also clear from the aforementioned provisions of Article 62.1 of the GRES that the assessments of the Class Council concerning [...]’s capabilities cannot in themselves be contested before the Complaints Board. Moreover, the said article 62.1, as confirmed by the established case-law of the Complaints Board, does not allow the latter to conduct pedagogical assessments or to examine whether or not the mark(s) awarded to a pupil correctly reflect his/her performances in the examination in question (see, inter alia, the decision of 27 September 2019 of the Complaints Board regarding appeal 19/43).


  • 16. Finally, the applicants invoke a lack of adequate feedback and communication following a request for additional information in line with Article 60.1.1.b of the GRES which involves the risk that the information provided by the legal representatives has not been adequately considered during the deliberations of the Class Council. They complain that the letter sent on 4th July 2024 does not indicate that the information provided under Article 60.1.1.b has been considered at all. However, the Complaints Board notes that the reasoning contained in the letter of the 4th of July 2024 informs the applicants clearly of the reasons underlying the non-promotion of their son and notes that there is no provision in the GRES requiring the School Director notifying a decision taken by the Class Council to specifically indicate the reasons why a request for derogation from the normal rules for promotion has been rejected.


  • 17. It follows from all the foregoing that the pleas put forward by the applicants are unfounded and that their action should be dismissed.


    		•
    Texte intégral
    Full text
    Volltext    		 FR : La version française n’existe pas
    EN: The English version doesn’t exist
    DE: Die deutsche Version existiert nicht

    Matching results        << New search                


    Avertissement : Warning: Achtung:
    Toutes les décisions de la Chambre de recours ne sont pas introduites dans la base de données.
    Seules les décisions les plus pertinentes sont publiées.         		Not all the decisions of the Complaints Board are included in the database.
    Only the most relevant decisions are published.         		Nicht alle Entscheidungen der Beschwerdekammer sind in der Datenbank veröffentlicht.
    Nur Entscheidungen von besonderer, allgemeiner Relevanz werden veröffentlicht.


    Contacts : Contact us: Kontakt:
    Pour les questions juridiques : complaints-board@eursc.eu About legal issues : complaints-board@eursc.eu Für rechtliche Fragen : complaints-board@eursc.eu
    Pour les questions techniques : osg-webmaster@eursc.eu About technical issues : osg-webmaster@eursc.eu Für Fragen zur Technik : osg-webmaster@eursc.eu