Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 144
August-September 2011
Dojan and Others v. Germany (dec.) - 319/08, 2455/08, 7908/10 et al.
Decision 13.9.2011 [Section V]
Article 2 of Protocol No. 1
Respect for parents' philosophical convictions
Respect for parents' religious convictions
Refusal to exempt children from sex-education classes and other school events which parents considered contrary to their religious convictions: inadmissible
Facts – The applicants, members of the Christian Evangelical Baptist Church with strong moral beliefs, had children who attended a local public primary school. Mandatory sex-education classes formed part of the school curriculum in the fourth year of primary school. In 2006 the school decided to hold two-day theatre workshops at regular intervals for third- and fourth-grade children, in order to raise awareness of the problem of sexual abuse of children. Finally, it was a school tradition to organise an annual carnival celebration. Students were offered swimming classes or exercise in the gym as an alternative activity if they did not wish to attend the carnival. The applicants prevented their children participating in some or all of the above activities and, as a result, were fined for an administrative offence, which, in the case of two parents who failed to pay, was later converted to a prison sentence.
Law – Article 2 of Protocol No. 1: The second sentence of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 aimed at safeguarding the possibility of pluralism in education, a possibility which was essential for the preservation of democratic society. It imposed a broad duty on the States to respect parents’ religious and philosophical convictions throughout the State-education system. However, the setting and planning of the curriculum in public schools in principle fell within the competence of the States and the solutions adopted might legitimately vary according to the country and the era. In fact, many subjects taught in school could, to a greater or a lesser extent, have some philosophical complexion or implications and the same was true of religious affinities. The second sentence of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 required the States, in fulfilling the functions assumed by them with regard to education, to ensure that the information or knowledge included in the curriculum was conveyed in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner and to avoid indoctrination that might be considered as not respecting parents’ religious and philosophical convictions. Such an interpretation was consistent with Articles 8 and 10 of the Convention as well as with the general spirit of the Convention.
The sex-education classes at issue aimed at neutral transmission of knowledge regarding procreation, contraception, pregnancy and child birth in accordance with the underlying legal provisions and the ensuing guidelines and curriculum, based on current scientific and educational standards. The goal of the theatre workshop was to raise awareness of sexual violence and abuse of children and was consonant with the principles of pluralism and objectivity embodied in Article 2 of Protocol No. 1. As regards the carnival celebration, the Court observed that it had not been accompanied by any religious activities and that alternative events had been offered for those who did not wish to attend. There was no indication that the information or knowledge imparted at any of the events complained of was not conveyed in an objective, critical and pluralistic manner. In refusing exemption from the compulsory sex-education classes, theatre workshop and carnival celebration, the national authorities had not overstepped their margin of appreciation. Moreover, the applicants had remained free to educate their children after school in conformity with their religious beliefs. Finally, the means employed with a view to compelling the applicants to ensure their children’s attendance at the events at issue had not been disproportionate. Even though two parents had been given a prison sentence in default, the Court considered it solely a means of enforcing their payment obligation that had been imposed in accordance with the relevant provisions of domestic law.
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