Application No. 23716/94
by S.M. & G.C.
against the United Kingdom
The European Commission of Human Rights (First Chamber) sitting
in private on 29 November 1995, the following members being present:
Mr. C.L. ROZAKIS, President
Mrs. J. LIDDY
MM. E. BUSUTTIL
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
M.P. PELLONPÄÄ
B. MARXER
B. CONFORTI
N. BRATZA
I. BÉKÉS
E. KONSTANTINOV
G. RESS
A. PERENIC
C. BÎRSAN
Mrs. M.F. BUQUICCHIO, Secretary to the Chamber
Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection
of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;
Having regard to the application introduced on 7 July 1993 by
S.M. & G.C. against the United Kingdom and registered on 18 March 1994
under file No. 23716/94;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules
of Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicants are British citizens and make this application in
their capacity as trustees of Meanscoil Feirste, a school in Northern
Ireland. Both are represented by Mr. P. Drinan, a solicitor practising
in Belfast.
Meanscoil Feirste was founded in 1991 and was the first Irish
language non-denominational secondary school in Northern Ireland. The
school is recognised by the Department of Education as an independent
school. It depends on private donations for funding and its students
do not pay fees.
In 1991 nine students enrolled. In 1992 and 1993 the enrolment
figures were twenty seven and thirty seven, respectively. The
Department of Education carried out an inspection of the school in 1992
and the inspectors indicated their satisfaction with the standard of
education in the school.
The school then applied to the Department for public funding.
However, by letter dated 1 September 1992 the Department indicated that
it would not support funding for the school.
Subsequently, a further proposal was put to the Department. This
proposal was considered by the Department but, by letter dated
22 November 1994, was also rejected on the basis that the principle of
parental choice was outweighed by the need to avoid unreasonable public
expenditure.
COMPLAINTS
The applicants complain under Article 2 of Protocol 1 and Article
14 of the Convention that publicly funded secondary school education
is available in English throughout the United Kingdom and in Welsh
throughout Wales and that there is no public funding for secondary
school education in the Irish language in Northern Ireland.
The applicants refer to the official acceptance in Wales that
parents have the right to educate their children through the Welsh
language, to the granting of public money in support of the Welsh
language, to the Welsh Language Acts 1967 and 1993 (which confer an
official status on the Welsh language), to various provisions of the
Education Act 1980 and the Education Reform Act 1988 (in respect of the
teaching of the Welsh language in schools) and to the setting up of a
Welsh section of the Curriculum Assessment Authority.
The applicants submit that, for many parents, the education of
their children through the medium of Irish is an important part of
their cultural identity and is the main reason why parents send their
children to a school such as Meanscoil Feirste.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
The application was introduced on 7 July 1993 and registered on
18 March 1994.
By letter dated 19 May 1994 the Secretariat of the Commission
referred the applicants' representative to a relevant decision of the
Commission (No. 11533/85, Dec. 6.3.87, D.R. 51 p. 125) and requested
clarification of whether the applicants were parents of children
attending the school.
By letter dated 7 December 1994 the applicants' representative
confirmed that neither of the applicants were parents of children
attending the school but indicated that he intended submitting another
application on behalf of a parent of a student of the school. A further
application form was therefore forwarded to the applicants'
representative on 26 January 1995.
By letter dated 6 July 1995 the Secretariat, inter alia,
requested confirmation of the applicants' representative as to whether
the present applicants wished to maintain their application and warning
that in the absence of any response by 18 August 1995 it might be
assumed that the applicants had lost interest in the application and
that it could therefore be struck from the list of cases.
There has been no correspondence nor any other form of response
from the applicants' representative since his letter of
1 December 1994.
REASONS FOR THE DECISION
The Commission recalls that, having been notified of a possible
admissibility issue as regards the status of the present applicants,
the applicants' representative responded by indicating that he wished
to submit another application on behalf of a parent of one of the
students of the school apparently with a view to avoiding that
admissibility issue in the present application. Having been sent a
further application form, that representative was asked to clarify
whether the present applicants wished to maintain their application.
The applicants' representative has not responded at all and it is noted
that the time limit fixed for such a response was 18 August 1995.
In these circumstances the Commission finds that the applicants,
through their representative, have indicated that they no longer intend
to pursue their application. The Commission further considers that
respect for Human Rights as defined in the Convention does not require
it to continue the examination of the application.
It follows that the application may be struck off the list of
cases pursuant to Article 30 para. 1(a) of the Convention.
For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,
DECIDES TO STRIKE THE APPLICATION OUT OF THE LIST OF CASES.
Secretary to the First Chamber President of the First Chamber
(M. F. BUQUICCHIO) (C. L. ROZAKIS)
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy