Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)237[1]
Execution of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights
Folgerø and others against Norway
(Application No. 15472/02, judgment of 29 June 2007, Grand Chamber)
The Committee of Ministers, under the terms of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which provides that the Committee supervises the execution of final judgments of the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter “the Convention” and “the Court”);
Having regard to the final judgment transmitted by the Court to the Committee;
Recalling that the violation of the Convention found by the Court in this case concerns the applicants’ right to ensure for their children education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions (violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1) (see details in Appendix);
Having invited the government of the respondent state to inform the Committee of the measures taken to comply with its obligation under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention to abide by the judgment;
Having examined the information provided by the government in accordance with the Committee’s Rules for the application of Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention;
Having satisfied itself that, within the time-limit set, the respondent state paid the applicant the just satisfaction provided in the judgment (see details in Appendix),
Recalling that a finding of violations by the Court requires, over and above the payment of just satisfaction awarded by the Court in its judgments, the adoption by the respondent state, where appropriate:
- of individual measures to put an end to the violations and erase their consequences so as to achieve as far as possible restitutio in integrum; and
- of general measures preventing similar violations;
DECLARES, having examined the measures taken by the respondent state (see Appendix), that it has exercised its functions under Article 46, paragraph 2, of the Convention in this case and
DECIDES to close the examination of this case.
Appendix to Resolution CM/ResDH(2011)237
Information about the measures to comply with the judgment in the case of
Folgerø and others against Norway
Introductory case summary
The case concerns the violation of the applicants’ right to ensure for their children education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions (violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1).
The European Court found that the possibility for the applicants to obtain a partial exemption for their children from the KRL classes (lessons on Christianity, religion and philosophy which were introduced as a reform of compulsory primary and secondary school in the 1990s) violated Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 given both the qualitative and quantitative differences in favour of Christianity inherent in the teaching of this subject and the shortcomings of the system of partial exemption.
I.Payment of just satisfaction and individual measures
a) Details of just satisfaction
Pecuniary damage
Non-pecuniary damage
Costs and expenses
Total
-
-
70 000 EUR
70 000 EUR
Paid on 27/09/2007
b) Individual measures
The European Court considered that the finding of the violation constituted in itself sufficient just satisfaction in respect of non-pecuniary damage. The applicants’ children are no longer in compulsory education. Consequently, no other individual measure was considered necessary by the Committee of Ministers.
II.General measures
1) Developments prior to the European Court’s judgment:
The Court noted that the government had already undertaken to reform the legal framework following a decision of the United Nations Human Rights Committee in 2004 (seised by different applicants) declaring the laws to be incompatible with the International Covenant on Civil and Political rights of 1966.
In 2005, the Parliament thus adopted certain amendments and additions to the 1998 Education Act, which entered into force with immediate effect; these changes were completed by a government circular (F-02-05). This remedied some of the issues which the Court subsequently found to be in violation of the European Convention (the Court examined the legal framework as it applied at the time of the violations, i.e. 1999‑2001):
a) As regards the content of the KRL classes, the 2005 amendments aimed at redressing the qualitative difference between the teaching of Christianity and other religions and philosophies, in particular by deleting the reference to Christianity as the starting point for teaching and by formulating each learning objective in the same quantitative manner for all religions and philosophies. The Curriculum does not include activities that could be regarded as the practice of a particular belief.
b) The partial exemption scheme was also improved and it has become sufficient for parents to notify their intention to have an exemption. No reasons are required. Schools are obliged to provide parents with sufficient information on how exemption functions and on the planned teaching in the subject. They must ensure that exemption is implemented and adapt teaching in consequence. Exemption, however, may not be requested from the academic content of the Curriculum.
2) Developments following the European Court’s judgment:
New amendments to the 1998 Education Act entered into force on 01/08/2008 with effect from the school year 2008/2009.
a) As regards the content of the classes, the amendments aim to further respond to the European Court’s concerns regarding the qualitative differences that applied to the teaching of Christianity as compared to that of other religions and philosophies. For this purpose the name of the subject has been altered to Religion, Philosophies of Life and Ethics (RE), and it is specified that it must be presented in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner, in accordance with human rights.
A new clause defining the object of the classes was adopted by Parliament in December 2008. It is the authorities’ opinion that the new clause no longer gives undue preference to the Christian faith. Christianity is mentioned as one, but not the only source, on which the fundamental values of education must be founded.
The Curriculum has been adapted to the new legislative amendments. It emphasises that religions and philosophies of life are to be presented in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner and that working methods which may be regarded as being related to religious practice should not be part of the Curriculum. A circular letter of August 2008 gave all schools information about the amendments and instructed them to take immediate measures to implement the new Curriculum for the subject Religion, Philosophies of Life and Ethics.
b) As regards the partial exemption scheme, a new paragraph was added to the provision on partial exemption stressing that schools shall respect the religious and philosophical convictions of pupils and their parents and ensure the right to equivalent education. The government submitted that schools are obliged to give parents more information about the content of lessons. In addition, any new dispute on the application of the exemption clause in the new regulatory environment may be brought before the Norwegian courts which accept the direct effect of the judgments of the European Court and will thus consider the matter with a view to preventing any new violation of the Convention.
3) Publication and dissemination:
In August 2007, the Ministry of Education and Research sent out a circular to all municipalities and primary and lower secondary schools with information about the judgment and its consequences for the KRL subject. It was particularly emphasised that instruction in the subject should only consist of information, and not include preaching or religious practice. It was furthermore emphasised that the teaching should be carried out in a neutral and objective manner and promote the same degree of respect and understanding for all religions and philosophies. All schools were instructed to provide parents with sufficient information about the planned teaching in the subject, and schools were instructed to respect the requests from parents for partial exemption from activities in the KRL subject. It was underlined that the right to exemption should be practiced liberally, particularly as to the Christian elements of the subject. The schools were instructed to be “extremely cautious about setting aside parents’ requests for exemption”.
A summary of the judgment in Norwegian, with a link to the original, was published on the Internet site Lovdata (). The Lovdata web site is widely used by all who practice law in Norway, civil servants, lawyers, prosecutors and judges alike. The Norwegian Centre for Human Rights (an independent national human rights institution) prepares summaries of the Court’s judgments for the database.
III.Conclusions of the respondent state
The government considers that in the circumstances of the case, no special individual measure is required and that the general measures adopted will in any event prevent similar violations and that Norway has thus complied with its obligations under Article 46, paragraph 1, of the Convention.
[1] Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 2 December 2011 at the 1128th Meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy