Information Note on the Court’s case-law 225
January 2019
Dupin v. France (dec.) - 2282/17
Decision 18.12.2018
Article 2 of Protocol No. 1
Right to education
Request for an autistic child to attend a mainstream school rejected in favour of placement in a specialised institution: inadmissible
Facts – The applicant is the mother of E., an autistic child born in 2002. In April 2011 she lodged with the Commission for the rights and autonomy of disabled persons (CDAPH) a request for her child’s admission to a mainstream school in a special integration class.
In August 2011 the CDAPH rejected that request and recommended referral to an institution for special health and educational needs (IME) – an approved health/welfare establishment providing specialised education to children and teenagers who mainly have learning difficulties – and care as a hospital outpatient while waiting for an IME place to become vacant. The applicant’s appeals against that decision were dismissed.
Law – Article 2 of Protocol No. 1: French law provided, as a priority, for the education of autistic children and teenagers in a mainstream setting through assistance from support staff or admission to a specific class, such as a special integration class.
The domestic authorities had opted, as regards E., for schooling in a specialised setting within an IME, with teaching methods tailored to his autism, as recommended by the experts.
While waiting for a place in an IME, E. had been provided with care as an outpatient with a half-day a week of schooling in a mainstream setting. In the course of that schooling he had not had much contact with the other pupils and did not speak, write or read, thus suggesting that he was not capable of assuming the constraints and minimum requirements of conduct for life in a mainstream school.
The national authorities had thus regarded E.’s condition as an impediment to his education in a mainstream setting, after weighing in the balance the level of his disability and the benefit he could derive from access to inclusive education. They had opted for an education that was tailored to his needs, in a specialised setting. This strategy had been satisfactory for the child’s father, who had custody of E. The choice made by the national authorities had thus not been a mere default option on account of a lack of means or special assistance in mainstream schools.
Lastly, since October 2013, E. had received effective learning support within an IME, and this form of schooling, albeit on a part-time basis, had proved conducive to his personal development.
In the light of the foregoing, the Court thus found that the refusal to admit the applicant’s son to a mainstream school did not constitute a failure by the State to fulfil its obligations under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 or a systematic negation of his right to education on account of his disability.
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