MEP Sven Simon (PPE) has raised concerns about fee differences between classical European Schools and their accredited counterparts, warning of potential cross-subsidisation and competitive disadvantages. In a parliamentary question submitted on 20 July 2026, Simon asks the European Commission to explain the rationale behind the fee gap and whether public funds are being used to subsidise fee-paying pupils at classical schools, which could constitute an economic activity under EU competition and state aid law.
The question targets the financial framework of the two school types. Classical European Schools, established under the 1994 Convention, receive EU budget funding and member state contributions in kind, including publicly provided infrastructure. Accredited European Schools, by contrast, must cover a larger share of their infrastructure and operating costs themselves, leading to higher fees. Simon points out that this disparity may push fee-paying families towards classical schools, raising questions about cross-subsidisation and structural competitive disadvantages for accredited institutions.
first, why there is a considerable difference between site-specific Category II contributions and the lower Category III fees, and what funds cover the gap; second, how Category III fees are set and how the Commission ensures no public funds cross-subsidise these places; and third, whether the Commission considers fee-paying schooling of Category III pupils at classical European Schools an economic activity under EU competition and state aid law.
The question reflects a concern over fair competition between the two school systems and the proper use of public funds. The Commission is expected to respond within approximately six weeks, and its answer will signal its stance on the financial and legal implications of the current fee structure.