Published on 17 November 2025
SECOND SECTION
Application no. 11826/23
Q
against the United Kingdom
lodged on 2 March 2023
communicated on 27 October 2025
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applicant was born in 2016. He was born prematurely and his early developmental milestones were delayed. He has a number of significant health problems including cerebral palsy, epilepsy and complex respiratory problems. He was known to the local authority (which has responsibility for children’s services and education) since the age of two.
In 2020 arrangements were made by the local authority for the applicant to attend a mainstream primary school. The school found it difficult to manage the applicant’s behaviour and placed him on a reduced hours timetable from his first day of school on 9 September 2020. It was subsequently decided that it was not suitable for him to continue attending the school. The school therefore made arrangements for the applicant to attend VIP Stop Gap from January 2021. VIP Stop Gap is not a school but an “alternative provision”, which falls outside the oversight of the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Services and Skills (Ofsted). The applicant initially attended VIP Stop Gap for 2.5 hours a week, before increasing to 7.5 hours a week. In October 2021 the applicant’s “alternative provision” at VIP Stop Gap was increased to 20 hours a week and, in November 2021, to 25 hours a week.
The applicant commenced judicial review proceedings alleging that the local authority had breached its duty under section 19 of the Education Act 1996 to provide him with suitable full-time education and that this amounted to a denial of his right to education under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. On 8 December 2021 his claim was dismissed. On 6 October 2022 the Court of Appeal refused him permission to appeal.
The applicant complains that between September 2020 and January 2022, when he was given a place at a school specifically established to cater for children with special educational needs and/or disabilities, there was a violation of his right not to be denied education under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Has the applicant complied with the time-limit laid down in Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, are there grounds for applying Rule 47 § 6 (b) of the Rules of Court to decide that 31 January 2023 was the date of introduction of the application (see, for example, Faulkner and McDonagh v. Ireland (dec.), nos. 30391/18 and 30416/18, § 86, 8 March 2022)?
2. Has the applicant been denied the right to education guaranteed by Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention (see, for example, the general principles in Case “relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium” (merits), 23 July 1968, p. 31, §§ 3-5, Series A no. 6, and Ali v. the United Kingdom, no. 40385/06, §§ 51-54, 11 January 2011)? The parties are invited to address in particular:
(a) the period prior to September 2020 and the extent of any preparation or assessments undertaken with a view to ensuring suitable educational provision for the applicant from September 2020 in light of his special educational needs and/or disabilities (see, mutatis mutandis, G.L. v. Italy, no. 59751/15, § 72, 10 September 2020);
(b) the decision-making process leading to the arrangements for the applicant to attend a mainstream primary school from September 2020, including the consideration, organisation and putting in place of any necessary additional support;
(c) the scope of the educational provision afforded to the applicant between September and December 2020, including decisions taken on the number of hours of education to be provided and steps taken to facilitate the applicant’s attendance at school, to accommodate and make suitable provision for his special educational needs and/or disabilities, and to ensure his access to appropriate education;
(d) the “alternative provision” afforded to the applicant from January 2021 to December 2021, in particular the content of the provision and the number of hours a week provided;
(e) the steps taken between September 2020 and December 2021 to secure appropriate long-term educational provision for the applicant; and
(f) the impact on the applicant, having regard notably to his special educational needs and/or disabilities, of the delay from September 2020 to January 2022 in his accessing a place in a suitable special school (see, in this respect, Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia [GC], nos. 43370/04 and 2 others, § 144, ECHR 2012 (extracts), and G.L. v. Italy, cited above, § 71).
REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS
The applicant is requested to obtain and submit a copy of the transcript of the 6 October 2022 hearing of the Court of Appeal which gave rise to the decision to refuse permission to appeal.