Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 123
October 2009
Appel-Irrgang and Others v. Germany (dec.) - 45216/07
Decision 6.10.2009 [Section V]
Article 2 of Protocol No. 1
Respect for parents' philosophical convictions
Respect for parents' religious convictions
Compulsory secular ethics classes, with no possibility of exemption for pupils in State secondary schools: inadmissible
Facts– In 2006 the Bundestag in Berlin amended the School Act to include compulsory ethics classes for all State secondary-school pupils. The applicants, who are Protestants, asked the school to exempt the first applicant from the ethics classes, but to no avail. All their subsequent appeals were dismissed.
Law– Article 2 of Protocol No. 1: The applicants complained mainly that the ethics lessons were not neutral and that their secular nature was contrary to their religious beliefs. For the Court the aims of the lessons – which were to promote the propensity and ability of secondary-school pupils, regardless of their origins, to address the fundamental cultural and ethical problems of individual and social life in order to develop their social skills and their aptitude for intercultural dialogue and ethical discernment – were in keeping with the principles of pluralism and objectiveness embodied in Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 and with the recommendations of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. The lessons were neutral and gave no more importance to one faith or religion than to another. They provided all pupils with the same basic values and taught them to be open to people whose beliefs differed from theirs. Furthermore, as the Federal Constitutional Court had pointed out, although teachers were expected to have their own views on the ethical issues addressed in the classes and to explain them to their pupils in a credible manner, they were not allowed to unduly influence the pupils. As to the teaching dispensed, the Court noted that the applicants had not pleaded that the course as it had actually been taught in the school year concerned had been disrespectful of their religious beliefs or intended to indoctrinate.
As to the applicants’ argument that despite Germany’s Christian tradition the Christian religion was not adequately represented in the ethics course, the Court considered that the school authorities’ choice of a neutral course that made room for different beliefs and convictions did not, in itself, raise a problem in respect of the Convention. The Federal Constitutional Court endorsed that choice in view of the special practical circumstances and the religious orientation in the Land of Berlin. Furthermore, the matter fell within the margin of appreciation left to the States. As regards the applicants’ claims that the ethics course was contrary to their religious beliefs, the Court observed that neither the School Act nor the curriculum could be considered to give priority to one particular belief or to omit or challenge other beliefs, including the Christian faith. The relevant provisions proposed addressing religious principles and invited schools to cover certain subjects in cooperation with religious or philosophical communities. As to the applicants’ argument that the classes also contained ideas or conceptions critical of or opposed to Christian beliefs, the Court deemed that it was not possible to deduce from the Convention a right not to be exposed to convictions other than one’s own. Moreover, nothing impeded the first applicant from continuing to attend the Protestant religion course offered by the school, and nothing prevented her parents from enlightening and advising their daughter by playing their natural role as educators and guiding her in a direction compatible with their own religious convictions.
Accordingly, by introducing mandatory ethics classes the national authorities had not exceeded the margin of appreciation conferred by Article 2 of Protocol No. 1. The Berlin authorities were therefore not obliged to allow a general exemption from the course. The fact that another German Land had decided to allow such an exemption made no difference to this conclusion.
Conclusion: inadmissible (manifestly ill-founded).
© Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights
This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court.
Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy