The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on
3 March 1986, the following members being present:
MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President
G. SPERDUTI
J.A. FROWEIN
G. JÖRUNDSSON
S. TRECHSEL
B. KIERNAN
A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK
A. WEITZEL
J.C. SOYER
H.G. SCHERMERS
G. BATLINER
H. VANDENBERGHE
Mrs G.H. THUNE
Sir Basil HALL
Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission
Having regard to Art. 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human
Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (art. 25);
Having regard to the application introduced on 2 July 1985 by
B.S. against the United Kingdom and registered on
5 August 1985 under file No. 11674/85;
Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of
Procedure of the Commission;
Having deliberated;
Decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The applicant is a British citizen, born in 1942 and is resident in
Brierly Hill, West Midlands. The facts as submitted by the applicant
may be summarised as follows.
In April 1985, the applicant's son was sent home from Thorns
Comprehensive School for not wearing a tie. Since her son was due to
leave school on 24 May 1985, the applicant refused to incur the
expense of buying one. The applicant's son was summoned to attend the
headmaster's office each morning for seven days which caused him
considerable humiliation. He was threatened with expulsion, though
this was later withdrawn.
The applicant wrote to the acting headmaster explaining her reasons
for her attitude, namely that the question of personal clothing was a
private and family matter. She refused to go to the school to discuss
the matter.
The applicant complained to the Local Education Authority which
explained that it was their policy to allow the question of uniform to
be determined by the school governors. The applicant then applied to
the Secretary of State to intervene. She was told that while there
was nothing in the Education Acts or Schools Regulations dealing
specifically with clothing, uniforms were regarded as a matter of
school discipline under the responsibility of the headteachers and
governors.
On another occasion, the applicant's daughter, attending Mount
Pleasant Junior School suffered distress and humiliation, when at a
school assembly, those not in uniform were asked to stand and their
appearance commented on unfavourably. This procedure was repeated on
other occasions, but the applicant's daughter remained seated on her
instructions. The applicant complained to the Local Education
Authority, which suggested it was an internal matter to be dealt with
by discussion with the headmaster.
The applicant's son has now left school, but her daughter will in due
course be attending the same comprehensive school.
COMPLAINTS
The applicant complains that the conduct of the schools in humiliating
her children and herself in respect of their clothing constitutes an
interference with private and family life. The applicant acknowledges
that her children should meet certain standards of cleanliness,
tidiness and warmth in their dress at school, but submits that school
requirements of colour and particular types of clothing go beyond this
and constitute expensive and objectionable intrusion in their private
family life.
The applicant also complains that school uniform requirements and the
harassment resulting from infringement of those rules constitute an
interference with the right of her children to express themselves as
they wish in the way they dress.
The applicant further submits that the facts outlined above constitute
an interference with the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions in
that her children are not able to wear their personal clothing free
from harassment. Further, the daughter would also run the risk of
being sent home from school if she wears clothes of her own choice and
would thus be deprived of the right to education.
The applicant therefore invokes Arts. 8 and 10 of the Convention
(art. 8, art. 10) and Arts. 1 and 2 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1, P1-2).
THE LAW
1. The applicant complains that the school's conduct in enforcing
school uniform rules constitutes an interference with the private and
family life of her children and herself.
It is true that Art. 8 of the Convention (art. 8) guarantees to
everyone the right to respect for their private and family life.
The Commission recalls that in McFEELEY v. the United Kingdom,
Application No. 8317/78, D.R. 20 p. 44 and X. v. the United Kingdom,
Application No. 8231/78, D.R. 28 p. 5, it was held that the
requirement for prisoners to wear prison clothing was an interference
with their rights under Art. 8, para. 1 (art. 8-1). However, the
Commission considers that the conditions of life pertaining to penal
institutions are totally distinct from the facts of the present case
and that the nature and extent of the rules differ to such a degree
that they cannot be equated. Prison uniforms retain a certain stigma
and mark a particular status. Prison uniforms are also worn
continuously whether the prisoner is working or at leisure.
Therefore, after examining the complaint as it has been submitted, the
Commission concludes that any constraint imposed by rules as to dress
during school hours on school premises cannot be said to be so serious
as to constitute an interference with the right to respect for private
and family life contrary to Art. 8, para. 1 of the Convention
(art. 8-1).
It follows therefore that this part of the application must be
rejected as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Art. 27,
para. 2 of the Convention (art. 27-2).
2. The applicant also complains that her children are prevented
from expressing themselves as they wish through their dress.
It is true Art. 10 of the Convention (art. 10) guarantees to everyone
the right to freedom of expression.
However, the Commission finds that although the right to freedom of
expression may include the right for a person to express his ideas
through the way he dresses, it has not been established on the facts
of the case that the applicant's children have been prevented from
expressing a particular opinion or idea by means of their clothing.
Further any rules regarding clothing only affect the children during
their attendance at school and they remain at liberty to express
themselves as they wish outside. The Commission concludes therefore
that an examination of this complaint as it has been submitted fails
to disclose any appearance of a violation of Art. 10 of the Convention
(art. 10).
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being
manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Art. 27, para. 2 of the
Convention (art. 27-2).
3. The applicant further complains that the enforcement of rules
as to school uniform interferes with the right to peaceful enjoyment
of the family's possessions and they might lead to her daughter being
sent home from school.
It is true that Art. 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) guarantees to everyone
the right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions and that Art. 2
of Protocol No. 1 (P1-2) states that no one shall be denied the
right to education.
However, the Commission recalls that any threat to the applicant's
daughter of being sent home would only materialise if she fails to
obey the rules as to school uniform. The Commission also finds that
any requirements imposed by the rules as to school uniform cannot be
said to impose a constraint so serious as to constitute a violation
under Art. 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).
Accordingly, an examination of these complaints as submitted fails to
disclose any appearance of a violation of Arts. 1 and 2 of Protocol
No. 1 (P1-1, P1-2).
It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being
manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Art. 27, para. 2
(art. 27-2).
For these reasons, the Commission
DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE
Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission
(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)