THE FACTS
The facts of the case presented by the parties and apparently not in
dispute between them may be summarised as follows:
The applicants, who are husband and wife, are Danish citizens living
in Varde. Mr. Kjeldsen was born in 1913 and is a galvaniser. Mrs.
Kjeldsen was born in 1921 and is a school teacher. They have a daughter
born in December 1962. The applicants are represented by Mr. Jorgen
Jacobsen, a lawyer practising in Copenhagen.
On 10 March 1970 the Danish Minister of Education tabled a Bill to
amend the Act relating to Public Schools (Lov om aendring af lov om
folkeskolen). This Bill, which received the Royal Assent on 27 May
1970, contained, inter alia, a provision whereby sex education was to
become a compulsory and integrated part of the curriculum in Danish
public schools. Before the passing of this Act, it had been obligatory
for pupils in the public schools to learn about the "reproduction of
man". This had formed part of the biology syllabus. But detailed sex
education had been an optional subject and parents had been free to
decide whether or not their children were to attend the relevant
classes. Teachers had also been free not to give sex instruction if
they did not wish to do so.
After the Act had been passed, the Minister of Education requested the
Curriculum Committee to prepare a new guide to sex education in public
schools. This Committee had been constituted in 1958 and had, in 1960,
provided a general guide to teaching in public schools. It produced,
in April 1971, a new guide to sex education in public schools
(Vejledning om seksualoplysning i folkeskolen) and this was sent out
to the school authorities together with an Execution Order
(bekendtgörelse) and Circular (cirkulaere) from the Ministry of
Education both of which were dated 8 June 1971. The Execution Order
provided that sex education should be integrated with the instruction
given in other subjects, preferably Danish, religious knowledge,
biology (hygiene), history (civics) and domestic relations. Section 2
of the Execution Order provided that the organisation and scope of
sexual guidance should be laid down in, or in accordance with, the
school curriculum. This left the choice about the organisation and
content of sexual guidance to the local school authorities. This guide
also set out general restrictions as to terminology and also as to the
teaching aids which were not to be employed. Local school authorities
could decide to ignore these restrictions, but could not oblige an
individual teacher to ignore them if he preferred to follow them.
On 15 June 1972, the Ministry of Education published a new Executive
Order and Circular. The Executive Order of 8 June 1971 was revoked. The
new Circular explained that the object of the new Order was to give
parents greater influence over the organisation of teaching. The new
Order did not contain any reference to the guide but the guide remained
unaltered.
On 25 April 1971 the applicants wrote to the Minister of Education
requesting that their daughter, who was then attending a public schools
in Varde, should be exempted from sex education. They stated that they
wished to give her this instruction themselves. The Minister of
Education replied on 6 May 1971 explaining that new regulations
concerning obligatory sex education were in the course or preparation.
In a further letter dated 14 July 1971, the Ministry explained that the
regulations had been issued on 8 June, and that under the regulations
sex education was integrated with the teaching of other subjects,
except for a separate course laid down in the sixth and ninth school
years. For practical reasons it was not possible to exempt children
from integrated sex instruction.
On 5 August 1971 the applicants again wrote to the Ministry, this time
enquiring about sex education in private schools. The Ministry replied
on 20 September to the effect that the freedom of parents to influence
the form of instruction in private schools was not interfered with and
that private schools were not obliged to provide instruction beyond
that which, since 1960, they had been obliged to give in the biology
syllabus.
On 31 August 1971 the Local School Commission (Skolekommissionen) of
Varde refused a request by the applicants that their daughter should
be given private education in Varde. The Commission stated that under
the law a child could be educated only in a public schools, in a
recognised private school or at home (hjemmeundervisning). On 13
October 1971 the Ministry replied to a further letter from the
applicants in which they had requested new legislation to provide for
free education without sex instruction. The Ministry stated that they
did not intend to introduce the legislation requested and they further
refused to arrange for the separate education of the applicants'
daughter. The Ministry also referred to a reply given to another person
who had alleged that compulsory sex education violated Article 2 of
Protocol No. 1. In the Ministry's view the provision of private schools
of exempting children from instruction which contained a particular
religious or moral foundation, meant that the Danish authorities had
complied with the terms of Article 2.
In May 1971 the applicants wrote a letter of complaint to the Danish
Parliament. They received no reply. They then wrote to the
Parliamentary Commissioner (Folketingets ombudsmand) but were informed
on 2 June 1971 that he had no competence to deal with the matter.
From August 1971 onwards, the applicants educated their daughter at
home. It appears that they were unable to continue this arrangement and
she returned to school in the autumn of 1972.
Complaints
The applicants alleged that the respondent Government had, by making
sex education compulsory in the Danish public schools, failed to
respect their right to ensure that the education of their daughter
should be in conformity with their religious and philosophical
convictions. In this connection, the applicants also referred to the
manner in which this education was carried out by the various
authorities concerned. Furthermore, as there was no private school in
Varde, the introduction of compulsory sex education in the only school
available might oblige them to keep their daughter away from school and
amount to a denial of her right to education.
In both respects they alleged a violation of Article 2 of Protocol No.
1.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
1. As to the Danish school system in general and the rules governing
sex education
The respondent Government first pointed out that Danish parents were,
under Article 76 of the Danish Constitution, under no compulsion to
send their children to public schools, although all children were
entitled to free education in public schools. They were entitled to
send them to private schools or to educate them at home. Their only
obligation was to ensure that their children received an elementary
education. Furthermore, parents had a decisive voice in the
administration of public schools. Parents of children at a public
school constituted a majority on the school board and, if they objected
to a particular book or to a particular teaching aid, it would not be
used. Although sex education had been compulsory in the whole country
since 1970, it was for the Minister of Education to decide from which
school year and in connection with which subjects it should be given.
The administration of public schools was decentralised. They were run
by local government councils, school commissions and school boards.
Each school board supervised the schools and organised co-operation
between schools and parents. School Committees drew up the curriculum
for their schools. These had to be approved by the local government
councils who were in turn assisted by "guidelines" issued by the
Minister of Education and prepared by the Curriculum Committee of the
public schools.
Private schools in Denmark received large subsidies from the State. As
a result, a pupil at a private school in Denmark did not generally pay
an annual fee in excess of 1,200 kroner.
The question of sex education in schools had been considered by various
Committees during the past 35 years. The Curriculum Committee, which
was set up by the Minister of Education in 1958 and which published a
"Guide to Teaching in Public Schools" (1960), distinguished between
teaching "the reproduction of man", which was part of the biology
syllabus, and sex education proper. The reproduction of man and been
an obligatory part of the syllabus (outside Copenhagen) since 1960, but
until the 1970 amendment of the Act in the Public Schools, sex
education was optional both for children and for teachers.
In 1961 the Government set up a Committee on Sex Guidance which was
composed of prominent doctors, lawyers, teachers, clergy and civil
servants. The chief object was to prevent unwanted pregnancies. Denmark
suffered at this time from a high abortion rate and a high illegitimacy
rate. Many couples, often very young, were married because the bride
was pregnant. Such a situation was unfortunate both for the young
parents and for their children.
The Committee submitted a report in 1968. The report was entitled "Sex
Education in Public Schools" (Report No. 484) and recommended that sex
education should henceforth be both an integral and an obligatory part
of the school curriculum. It was necessary that once the teaching of
sex was integrated into the curriculum it was also made obligatory.
This was because it was not practical to exempt a child from 5 minutes'
teaching in one class and 10 minutes' teaching in another . In making
sex an obligatory subject Denmark was following the model taken by
Sweden some years previously.
The Act of 27 May 1970 was a direct result of the Committee's
recommendation. As soon as the Act had provided for obligatory sex
education, the Minister of Education requested the Curriculum Committee
to prepare a new guide to sex education in public schools. This was
sent out to the school authorities concerned together with an Executive
Order and a Circular issued by the Ministry on 8 June 1971.
The Executive Order provided that the objectives of sex education at
school should be "to impart to the pupils knowledge which could:
(a) help the pupils to avoid such insecurity and apprehension as would
otherwise cause them problems;
(b) promote understanding of a connection between sex life, love life,
and general human relationship;
(c) enable the individual pupil independently to arrive at standpoints
which harmonise best with his or her personality;
(d) stress the importance of responsibility and consideration in
matters of sex."
The guide set out the same objectives. It also stressed the necessity
of strict objectivity in ethical and moral questions.
The Executive Order further provided that sex education at all levels
should form part of the instruction given in general school subjects.
The organisation and scope of sexual guidance should be laid down in,
or in accordance with, the curriculum. Thus the local school
authorities were secured direct influence on sex education.
The guide set out certain general restrictions (which according to the
above Executive Order, bound the teacher regardless of the curriculum):
(a) the teacher should not use expressions taken from vulgar sex
terminology;
(b) the teacher should in no way give the individual pupil any sex
guidance which could ave the character of personal advice;
(c) the teacher should not give information about the technique of
coitus;
(d) the teacher should not use photographs depicting certain erotic
situations.
As parents formed a majority on school boards and were also well
represented on school commissions, they had ample opportunity to make
sure that teaching aids of which they did not approve were not used.
It was not possible to guarantee that every parent approved of every
book used in a particular school, but the system as a whole ensured
that the wishes of parents were taken into account as much as possible.
In addition to integrated sex education which was obligatory for both
pupils and teachers, a survey of the main topics covered by sex
education might be given in the sixth and ninth school years. This
special instruction was voluntary for pupils as well as for teachers.
On 15 June 1972 a new Executive Order was published. This revoked the
Order of 8 June 1971. The Ministry of Education also issued a Circular
on the same day. The Circular explained that the object of the new
Order was to give parents greater influence over the organisation of
teaching. The objective of sex education had also become more confined;
placing greater emphasis on imparting factual information. At the same
time, however, minimum requirements were established for the scope of
the instruction. Section 3 (2) of the new Order stated that teachers
should not be under any obligation to give the additional instruction
which was voluntary for the pupils, nor should the teachers be obliged
to "impart information about coital techniques or to use photographs
representing erotic situations", if they did not wish to. Unlike the
1971 Order the new Order contained no reference to the guide but the
guide remained unaltered. It was intended by the Ministry to emphasise
that the guide was an aid to local school authorities in drawing up
curricula.
In Varde itself, the sex education provisions of the 1970 Act had, in
December 1972, still not come into effect. The schools were still using
curricula which were adopted in 1969 and, although the Varde School
Commission had forwarded a new draft curriculum to the school boards,
this had not been approved but was expected to be adopted early in
1973. None of the teaching aids which the applicants had submitted as
evidence to the Commission had yet been approved for use in Varde and
the Act of 1970 had, as yet, no effect in the town.
At the hearing it was conceded by the applicants' counsel that Article
76 of the Danish Constitution did, indeed, grant all parents the right
to free public education for their children and also the right to opt
out of the state system and have their children educated privately. But
it was not relevant to the second sentence of Article 2 to say that
parents could opt out of the state system. The second sentence of
Article 2 protected parents when their children were within the state
system. The applicants did not attack the motivation of the Government
in introducing sex education. But they attacked the compulsory and
integrated nature of that education. Again, they did not dispute that
the majority opinion of parents could make itself felt in the running
of the schools and in the choice of teaching aids. This case, however,
raised the question not of majority opinion but of minority opinion.
Furthermore, the applicants were complaining about the use of certain
books and films which they considered to be offensive. It might be true
that these were not yet in the use in Varde but they could come into
use there at any time or, alternatively, the applicants might move to
a part of Denmark where they were already in use.
The applicants felt that it was their right to choose in what way their
daughter learned about sex. They believed that a child should be taught
about sex in such a way as to explain to her its connection with love
and to explain that love life is more important that sex life.
The Government had stated that the Executive Order and guide prevented
the teaching of sex from taking a form which could offend the parents.
But it was apparent that the theoretical restrictions were not intended
to be, or were not being, applied. Although the guide "dissuaded"
teachers from using vulgar terminology and "recommended" them to use
conventional terms, it could be seen that a book by Bent H. Claësson
"Dreng og Pige, Mand og Kvinde" which had been produced to the
Commission and which was intended for use by 10 to 14 years old
contained a large amount of vulgar terminology. This book was used in
many schools and 55,000 copies which was a very large sale by Danish
standards, had been issued. The book also gave information about the
technique of coitus and contained erotic photographs. All this was
contrary to the policy officially laid down in the guide. It should
also be noted that, while the Act of 27 May 1970 had made integrated
sex education compulsory both for pupils and for teachers, there had
been vigorous protests from many teachers and, on 15 June 1972, the
Ministry had been obliged to issue an order permitting teachers to free
themselves from the duty to give instruction in sex. There was thus now
a distinction between teachers and pupils. The former were now under
no duty to give sexual instruction but the latter remained under a duty
to receive it.
The applicants were not opposed to sex education but believed that it
was their duty, not the duty of the State, to explain sex to their
daughter. In this respect the applicants referred to and adopted the
arguments of the Minister of Religion and author, Mr Sören Krarup (Den
helige hensigt, 1969, pp. 40-47).
2. The respondent Government observed that the applicants had made
no attempt to take their complaint before the Danish courts. Although
the Convention had never been incorporated directly into Danish law by
legislation, this was because special enactment was not considered
necessary. Rules similar to the provisions of the Convention were in
force in Denmark before 1953 when the Convention was ratified. But,
when a treaty had been ratified and no special implementing legislation
had been passed, it was the duty of the administrative authorities and
of the law courts to interpret internal law in such a way as to ensure
its compliance with such treaty. This principle which was referred to
as the "rule of interpretation" ensured that a legal provision whose
meaning was obscure should be interpreted so as to conform with treaty
obligations. There was also a second principle which had been referred
to by legal writers in Denmark as the "rule of presumption". This rule
went further and was to the effect that a legal provision enacted after
a treaty had come into force should be interpreted to comply with the
treaty even if its prima facie meaning seemed to be at variance with
the treaty. An express statutory provision which was clearly contrary
to a treaty provision would, however, under Danish law, prevail over
the treaty, if the legislator had intended to enact the statute so as
to vary the international obligation. The Government further referred
to Article 63 of the Danish Constitution which authorised the courts
to "decide any question bearing upon the scope of the authority of the
administration".
Following these rules, it would be open to the applicants to plead
before the Danish courts that the provisions for compulsory integrated
sex education were at variance with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1. Not
only had academic writers maintained that it was possible to raise the
Convention before the Danish courts but the Town Court of Copenhagen
had specifically referred to Article 6 (3) (e) of the Convention in a
case where it had ordered that the cost of interpretation should be
paid out of public funds and not by the defendant who was a foreigners.
As a further example the Government referred to the discretionary
powers given to the Ministry of Justice, under the act on Aliens' Entry
and Residence in Denmark, to take decisions on the expulsion of aliens.
In exercising these powers the Minister of Justice had taken into
account the right to respect for family life as guaranteed under
Article 8 of the Convention.
The rules of interpretation and presumption should be borne in mind
when noting the way that compulsory integrated sex education was
introduced in Denmark. When the competent Danish authorities introduced
administrative measures under the Act of 1970 they would at all times
attempt to ensure that these measures complied with Denmark's treaty
obligations. It seemed that counsel for the applicants intended to cite
a Supreme Court (Höjesteret) decision of 16 September 1972 but this
decision was irrelevant. It merely held that the Supreme Court could
not decide whether or not a draft bill was compatible with the Danish
Constitution. But the present case was not concerned with a draft bill.
It was concerned with the compatibility of administrative regulations
with the European Convention.
In the Government's submission the applicants were at liberty to bring
an action against the Minister of Education claiming that the Minister
be ordered to recognise the applicants' right to have their daughter
exempted from obligatory sex education. In support of their claim they
could plead that the administrative rules which precluded exemption
were not binding on them because these rules were not adequately
provided for in the 1970 amendment and this amendment should be read
in the light of Denmark's international obligations, in particular
Article 2 of Protocol No. 1. The Government considered that such a
legal action could be based on Article 63 of the Convention and stated
that in such proceedings the Minister, or the Solicitor General acting
on his behalf, would not ask that the claim be declared inadmissible.
The respondent Government submitted that the application should,
therefore, in the first place be rejected on the ground that the
applicants had failed to exhaust the domestic remedies available to
them.
In reply the applicants pointed out that they had written a letter to
the Danish Parliament in May 1971. This letter had not been answered.
It was not justifiable for the Government now to say that the
applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies which the Government
had failed to point out to them when it had had the opportunity.
Alternatively, Article 63 of the Danish Constitution was completely
irrelevant. It stated that the Danish courts were entitled to decide
any question bearing upon the scope of the authority of the
administration. But the present case was not about the authority of the
administration. It was about an Act of Parliament which had itself laid
down the basic rule, i.e. compulsory sex education and authorised the
Minister of Education to issue regulations to implement this rule. The
decision of the Danish Supreme Court of 26 September 1972 showed that
Article 63 of the Convention could not be invoked against an Act of
Parliament.
3. As to the question whether the application is incompatible
The respondent Government submitted that the travaux préparatoires to
Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 showed that one of the notions behind the
efforts to include educational matters in the Convention or in a
Protocol was the principle of freedom of private education. The aim of
the provisions was to ensure that there would be no revival of the
forced regimentation of children and young persons organised by
totalitarian regimes before and during the second world war. Freedom
of private education was not a privilege reserved for parents having
religious convictions but also included philosophical convictions. The
other notion was the idea that parents should be free to demand that
their children should be exempted from religious instruction in the
public schools to the extent that such instruction would not be in
conformity with the convictions of the parents.
The respondent Government argued that a State had fulfilled all its
obligations under Article 2 when parents were free to provide education
and teaching for their children in private schools. Hence, the
obligation to give parents the right to have their children exempted
from taking part in certain parts of the education provided in public
schools would arise only where attendance of a public school was
compulsory. In Denmark, however, parents had a right to have their
children educated at private schools or to arrange for them to be
taught privately at their homes. For these reasons the application
should therefore be declared incompatible with the provisions of the
Convention.
The applicants submitted that Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 gave parents
the right to have their children exempted from certain parts of the
syllabus in public schools. This right existed even when attendance at
public schools was not compulsory.
It was not open to the Government to introduce sex education in a
vulgar form in the public schools and then tell parents that, if they
did not wish their children to be indoctrinated, they could send them
to a private school 19 kilometres away.
4. As to the question whether the application is manifestly
ill-founded
Alternatively, if the Commission were to hold that the complaint was
not incompatible with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1, the respondent
Government argued that any right to exemption contained in Article 2
must be construed very narrowly. On this new right to exemption was a
right to exemption from religious education of a denominational
character. It was impractical to extend the right further . It would
not be possible, for example, to allow pacifist parents to have their
children exempted from history lessons dealing with wars. The present
complaint was, therefore, manifestly ill-founded.
As for the applicants' allegation that their daughter had been "denied
the right to education" and there was thereby a violation of the first
sentence of Article 2 of the Protocol, the Government pointed out that
there was nothing to prevent her being sent to a private school in
Esbjerg 19 kilometres from Varde.
The applicants submitted that the words "manifestly ill-founded" should
be read as they stood. They were very strong words indeed. The
Government had argued that any right to exemption contained in Article
2 must be construed very narrowly. It had based its argument on
"practical considerations" and on the travaux préparatoires. But it
would be wrong to declare the application inadmissible when the
problems raised were of a complex and difficult nature. The applicants
contested that the right to exemption under Article 2 should be
narrowly defined. Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 governed a clearly
defined sector of private life. The Government had quoted the Executive
Order of 8 June 1971 which was full of nice-sounding words and phrases
such as - "avoiding insecurity" - "promoting understanding" -
"standpoints" - "stress". But who was to decide which "insecurity",
which "understanding", which "standpoints", what "stress"? Was it to
be the State? The applicants maintained that compulsory and integrated
sex education might have a destructive influence on their daughter's
sexual and religious life. They were of the opinion that the
Darwinistic concept of life which prevailed in this education was
contrary to their philosophical and religious convictions.
Lastly, the applicants wished to stress that they did not stand alone.
Their counsel quoted newspaper articles to show that a body of
responsible opinion in Denmark stood behind them.
THE LAW
1. The applicants have complained that the respondent Government,
by making sex education compulsory in Danish public schools, have
failed to respect the applicants' right to ensure that the education
of their daughter conforms with their religious and philosophical
convictions, and thereby violated Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-2).
They have further alleged that the Government are denying their
daughter her right to education as provided for in the same Article,
by making it impossible for her to attend any public school where such
compulsory education is given.
The respondent Government have submitted that the application should
be rejected on the ground that the applicants have failed to exhaust
the domestic remedies available to them under Danish law;
alternatively, that the application should be declared inadmissible as
being incompatible with the provisions of the Convention; and in the
further alternative, that it should be declared inadmissible as being
manifestly ill-founded.
As regards the first ground, it is true that under Article 26 (Art. 26)
of the Convention, the Commission may only deal with a matter after all
domestic remedies have been exhausted according to the generally
recognised rules of international law.
The respondent Government have here submitted that the applicants
could, under Article 63 of the Danish Constitution, have brought a
court action against the Minister of Education, claiming that the
Minister be ordered to recognise their right to have their daughter
exempted from obligatory sex education. In the Government's view, the
applicants could have argued, in support of their claim, that the
administrative rules which precluded exemption were not adequately
provided for in the Act of 27 May 1970 amending the Act on the Public
Schools as this amendment should be read in the light of Denmark's
international obligations, in particular under Article 2 of Protocol
No. 1 (P1-2).
The applicants have admitted that they did not bring any proceedings
before the Danish courts in regard to the matters of which they now
complain. They have, however, submitted that a legal action of the kind
suggested by the respondent Government would not be an effective remedy
for the purposes of Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention. They point
out that the basic rule making sex education compulsory was laid down
in the 1970 Act itself and could therefore not be challenged under
Article 63 of the Constitution which only authorises the courts to
decide questions bearing upon the scope of the authority of the
executive power.
The Commission first recalls that it has frequently held that, in order
to comply with the requirements of Article 26 (Art. 26) of the
Convention, an applicant is obliged to exhaust every domestic remedy
which cannot clearly be said to lack any prospect of success (see e.g.,
the decisions on admissibility of applications No. 712/60, Retimag S.A.
v. Federal Republic of Germany, Yearbook, Vol. 4, pp. 384, 400, and No.
2257/64, Soltikow v. Federal Republic of Germany, Yearbook, Vol. 11,
pp. 180, 224.)
It is true that in the present case the respondent Government have not
been able to show that the Danish courts, in proceedings brought under
Article 63 of the Constitution, have ever ruled on the question whether
the Convention could be invoked in judging the legality of
administrative regulations. On the other hand, the Government have
explained that it is a widely accepted view in Danish legal theory that
a valid treaty, such as the Convention, imposes on the domestic
authorities an obligation to apply and interpret national law in a
manner to ensure that, wherever possible, Denmark's treaty obligations
are fulfilled.
The Commission finds that, insofar as the present application relates
to the directives issued by the Ministry of Education and other
administrative measures taken by the Danish authorities regarding the
manner in which the sex education referred to in the 1970 Act should
be carried out, it cannot be said that the remedy indicated by the
respondent Government would clearly have been without any prospect of
success. Moreover, an examination of the case, as it has been
submitted, does not disclose the existence of any special circumstances
which might have absolved the applicants, according to the generally
recognised rules of international law, from exhausting this remedy.
It follows that, in this respect, the applicants have not complied with
the condition as to the exhaustion of domestic remedies and this part
of the application must therefore be rejected under Article 27 (3)
(Art. 27-3) of the Convention.
2. The Commission has next considered whether there was any remedy
against the Act of 27 May 1970 which laid down the principle of
compulsory sex education and authorised the Minister of Education to
issue regulations as to how this instruction should be given.
The applicants have asserted that no proceedings could be taken under
Article 63 of the Danish Constitution against an Act of Parliament. The
respondent Government have not contested this assertion and have not
suggested that any other specific remedy might be available to the
applicants insofar as the provisions of the 1970 Act are concerned. The
Commission therefore concludes that there was no effective domestic
remedy available to the applicants with regard to the principle of
compulsory sex education as embodied in the Act. It follows that, in
this respect, the application cannot be rejected as inadmissible under
Article 26 (Art. 26) of the Convention.
3. Without in any way prejudicing its final opinion as to the
interpretation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-2), the Commission
is nevertheless fully satisfied that the applicants' complaint cannot
be considered as clearly falling outside the scope of this Article. The
complaint cannot, therefore, as submitted by the respondent Government,
be rejected as being incompatible ratione materiae with the provisions
of the Convention. On the contrary, the Commission considers that the
complaint raises important and complex issues under Article 2 of
Protocol No. 1 (P1-2) whose determination should depend on an
examination of the merits of the case.
For these reasons, the Commission
1. Declares admissible the application insofar as the applicants
complain that the Act of 27 May 1970 providing for obligatory sex
education in the public schools constitutes a violation of Article 2
of Protocol No. 1 (P1-2).
2. Declares inadmissible the application insofar as it relates to
the directives issued and other administrative measures taken by the
Danish authorities regarding the manner in which such sex education
should be carried out.