Published on 6 April 2021
FIFTH SECTION
Application no. 56928/19
Dina VALIULLINA and Others against Latvia
and 7 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 15 March 2021
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications concern the latest stage in the education reform in Latvia whereby – following a number of amendments to the relevant laws and regulations in 2018 (such as amendments to the Education Law, the General Education Law, and Regulation no. 716 issued by the Cabinet of Ministers, “the 2018 amendments”) – the use of minority languages as languages of instruction in public and private pre-schools, primary and secondary schools has been reduced.
The applicants are parents and children who identify themselves as belonging to the Russian-speaking minority in Latvia. The children have attended, are currently attending or will attend public or private pre-schools, primary or secondary schools and have been affected by the 2018 amendments.
The Constitutional Court in its judgments of 23 April 2019 (as regards public schools), 13 November 2019 (as regards private schools), and 19 June 2020 (as regards pre-schools) held that the 2018 amendments were compatible with the right to education, the rights of minorities and the prohibition of discrimination as enshrined in the Latvian Constitution.
The applicants complain under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention that as a result of the 2018 amendments their right to education has been affected and that they have suffered discrimination on various grounds. Some applicants submit that Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention should be read in the light of Article 8 of the Convention but do not raise a separate complaint under that Article, while other applicants also complain under Article 8 taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES AS REGARDS ALL APPLICATIONS
1. Have the applicants exhausted all domestic remedies in respect of their complaints as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention?
2. Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private and/or family life within the meaning of Article 8 § 1 of the Convention?
3. Does Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention provide for a right to use and receive education in a language other than the State language in the circumstances of the present cases?
4. Does Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention provide for a right to continue pursuing education in a language other than the State language in the circumstances when education in that language had been previously available?
5. Have the applicants been denied the right to education, guaranteed by Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention? In particular, did the restrictions on the use of the Russian language following the 2018 amendments impair the very essence of the applicants’ right to education or its effectiveness? Were those restrictions:
(a) Prescribed by law and foreseeable for the applicants?
(b) Pursuing a legitimate aim?
(c) Proportionate to the aim pursued? Did the State sufficiently balance the various interests at stake? What is the scope of the State’s margin of appreciation in the field of regulation of educational institutions at every level of the education system (pre-schools, primary and secondary schools)?
6. The parties are invited to provide further factual information on the education (methodology, study materials, textbooks, and training for teachers) provided in those pre-schools, primary and secondary schools which were affected by the 2018 amendments.
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AS REGARDS APPLICATIONS CONCERNING PUBLIC SCHOOLS (nos. 56928/19, 7306/20 and 11937/20)
7. Have the applicants suffered discrimination on the ground of “language” and/or “association with a national minority” and/or “other status”, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8 § 1 of the Convention and/or Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?
7.1. In particular, have the applicants been subjected to a difference in treatment in comparison with children whose mother tongue is Latvian?
7.2. If the answer is in the affirmative, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim; and did it have a reasonable justification?
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AS REGARDS APPLICATIONS CONCERNING PRIVATE SCHOOLS (nos. 225/20, 11642/20 and 21815/20)
8. Have the applicants suffered discrimination on the ground of “language “and/or “association with a national minority” and/or “other status”, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8 § 1 of the Convention and/or Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?
8.1. In particular, have the applicants been subjected to a difference in treatment in comparison with:
(a) Children whose mother tongue is Latvian?
(b) Children whose mother tongue is one of the official languages of the European Union?
(c) Children whose mother tongue is of a country with which Latvia has concluded a bilateral or multilateral agreement in the field of education?
8.2. If the answer is in the affirmative, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim; and did it have a reasonable justification?
ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AS REGARDS APPLICATIONS CONCERNING PRE-SCHOOLS (nos. 50942/20 and 2022/21)
9. Does Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention apply to such educational institutions as pre-schools? The parties are invited to address separately the following age groups – from 1.5 to 5 years of age and from 5 to 7 years of age. From what age is the education compulsory in Latvia?
10. Have the applicants suffered discrimination on the ground of “language” and/or “association with a national minority” and/or “other status”, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8 § 1 of the Convention and/or Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention?
10.1. In particular, have the applicants been subjected to a difference in treatment in comparison with children whose mother tongue is Latvian?
10.2. If the answer is in the affirmative, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim; and did it have a reasonable justification?
11. As regards application no. 50942/20, have the applicants, who claim to have various impairments, suffered discrimination on the ground of “other status” contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article 8 § 1 of the Convention and/or Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention in comparison with other children who identify themselves with the Russian-speaking minority? If the answer is in the affirmative, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim; and did it have a reasonable justification?
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality
Represented by
School
1.
56928/19
Valiullina and Truši v. Latvia
22/01/2019
Dina VALIULLINA
1975
Rīga
Latvian
Timurs TRUŠS
2009
Rīga
Latvian
Milana TRUŠA
2009
Rīga
Latvian
Jeļizaveta TRUŠA
2009
Rīga
Latvian
PUBLIC
2.
225/20
Džibuti v. Latvia
11/12/2019
Tengizs DŽIBUTI
1981
Rīga
Latvian
Davids DŽIBUTI
2007
Rīga
Latvian
Dana DŽIBUTI
2010
Rīga
Latvian
Inese NIKUĻCEVA
(lawyer)
PRIVATE
3.
7306/20
Neronovas v. Latvia
28/01/2020
Natālija NERONOVA
1976
Rīga
Latvian
Ksenija NERONOVA
2006
Rīga
Latvian
Oļesja NERONOVA
2010
Rīga
Latvian
PUBLIC
4.
11642/20
Boroduļa v. Latvia
24/02/2020
Deniss BORODUĻA
1981
Riga
Latvian
PRIVATE
5.
11937/20
Raizere-Rubcova and Others v. Latvia
13/02/2020
Diāna RAIZERE-RUBCOVA
1980
Riga
Latvian
Sofija RUBCOVA
2008
Riga
Latvian
Jeļisaveta RUBCOVA
2012
Riga
Latvian
PUBLIC
6.
21815/20
Ševšeļova v. Latvia
13/05/2020
Gaļina ŠEVŠEĻOVA
1970
Jurmala
Latvian
PRIVATE
7.
50942/20
Djeri and Others v. Latvia
04/11/2020
Inna DJERI
1978
Jūrmala
Latvian
Jūlija SOHINA
1977
Rīga
Latvian
Jelena DJERI
2015
Jurmala
Latvian
Alona GRIGORJEVA KULINOKA
1990
Riga
Latvian
Alisa KULINOKA
2016
Riga
Latvian
Marianna KULINOKA
2020
Riga
Latvian
Ratmirs ČUBAROVS
2014
Riga
Latvian
Vladimirs BUZAJEVS
(not lawyer)
PRE‑SCHOOL
8.
2022/21
Gomajunova and Livdāne v. Latvia
18/12/2020
Jelena GOMAJUNOVA
1976
Riga
Latvian
Anna LIVDĀNE
2018
Riga
Latvian
PRE‑SCHOOL
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy