Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 89
September 2006
Konrad and Others v. Germany (dec.) - 35504/03
Decision 11.9.2006 [Section V]
Article 2 of Protocol No. 1
Respect for parents' religious convictions
Refusal to grant the children exemption from compulsory primary school attendance requested by their parents for religious reasons: inadmissible
The applicant parents, belonging to a Christian community, reject the attendance of private or State schools for their children because of sex education, studies of fairytales during school lessons and the increasing physical and psychological violence between pupils. They educate their children at home in accordance with the syllabus of an institution which specialises in assisting devout Christian parents in this task but is not recognised as a private school by the State. On behalf of their children, the applicant parents filed a motion in order to exempt them from compulsory primary school attendance for religious reasons. The school supervisory authority rejected their motion. That refusal was confirmed by the German courts which had based their decisions on the following grounds. Because of their young age, the applicants’ children were unable to foresee the consequences of their parents’ decision for home education and could hardly be expected to take an autonomous decision for themselves. Although under the Basic Law the parents had the right to educate their children according to their own philosophical and religious convictions, that right was not exclusive as the State’s constitutional obligation to provide education was on an equal footing. This obligation did not only concern the acquisition of knowledge, but also the education of responsible citizens who participate in a democratic and pluralistic society. The acquisition of social competence in dealing with other persons who hold different views and in holding an opinion which differed from the views of the majority could only materialise through regular contact with society. Everyday experience with other children based on regular school attendance was a more effective means to achieve that aim than home education. Given the general interest of society in the integration of minorities and in avoiding the emergence of parallel societies, the interference with the applicants’ fundamental rights was proportionate and reasonable, as they could still educate their children before and after school as well as at weekends. They were also free to send their children to a confessional school. Moreover, the school’s obligation of religious neutrality would prevent the applicants’ children from any indoctrination against their will and from superstition. As regards violence, the applicant parents had not argued that the school authorities would fail to take necessary measures in order to prevent ill-treatment amongst children.
The Court recalled that parents may not refuse the right to education of a child on the basis of their convictions. The right to education by its very nature called for regulation by the State which enjoyed a certain margin of appreciation in setting up and interpreting rules for its education systems. There appeared to be no consensus among the Contracting States with regard to home education and compulsory attendance of primary schools. The Court did not consider erroneous the assumption that the objectives of integration into society and of gaining social experience cannot be met as well by home education as by attending primary school. This conclusion reached by the German courts fell within the State’s margin of appreciation and was compatible with the Court’s case-law on the importance of pluralism for democracy. Moreover, the parents’ right to educate their children in conformity with their religious convictions was not restricted in a disproportionate manner: 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