Freedom of education, philosophical convictions
Already in the Kjeldsen, limits dawn we saw some this educational freedom. First, even assuming that the second sentence of Article 2 of Protocol I applies to public school, it would involve only the right for parents to have their children exempted from religious instruction to denominational. The Court further states in that judgment, it reflects the fact that the authorities provide substantial assistance to private schools, thereby providing parents an alternative.
More importantly, the Court affirmed the primacy of the child's right to education, the right of parents to respect for their convictions, "the second sentence of Article 2 should be read in conjunction with the first which enshrines the right of everyone to education. It is this fundamental right that is grafted the right the right of parents to respect for their religious and philosophical convictions ... ".
The two sentences of Article 2 must be read "in the light not only to each other but also, in particular, Articles 8, 9 and 10 of the Convention which proclaim the right of every person, including parents and children to respect for his private and family life, freedom of thought, conscience and religion and the freedom to receive and impart information and ideas ". The European judges emerge from this principle that the setting and planning of the curriculum fall in principle within the jurisdiction of States: a wide margin of appreciation is left to them, held account of the variety of opportunity decisions according space, time ... Thus, the second sentence of Article 2 of Protocol does not prohibit the State to pass through the teaching of information or knowledge of a directly or indirectly religious or philosophical.
[...] " The centerpiece of this judgment is clear that the only limit placed on the state is the aim of indoctrination. He can pursue this goal or seek to "influence children in a particular faith or belief." ii) The subsequent case law, it "drives the point." The principle remains still during a confessional statement, without possibility of exemption, breach of Article 2 of Protocol I. Concerning religious instruction, the decision Angelini c / Sweden of 3 December 1986 is revealing. [...]
[...] Here, a young girl and her mother, atheists, wanted exemption from religious instruction. The government argued that the teaching in question was neutral, or various elements allowed to harbor doubts about it, the government itself acknowledged that the course was mostly about Christianity. The problem lay in the fact that the Swedish authorities enabled to provide this teaching a child with the condition that it belongs to another faith and to receive an alternative religious education. The Commission, however, refuses to carry out monitoring of the course content and the method used, as in the case Kjeldsen .It merely asserts that the "fact that religious instruction be focused on Christianity in the first cycle does not mean that the second applicant has undergone religious indoctrination contrary to Article 9 of the Convention. [...]
[...] " A decision from 1994 CJ, JJ and EJ c / Poland highlights another problem: despite being religious exemptions made pressures on children may deter them from using it. In this case, three girls were being, it seems, pressure. The third, after some time, gave way. But the Commission merely observed that the two daughters of the first applicant were not forced to follow religious instruction, since they were optional and that "the second applicant decided herself during school year 1192/1993 to attend religious instruction, "without trying to verify whether this decision was not the result of social pressure on the schoolgirl. [...]
[...] Kokkinakis against Greece May 1993: freedom of expression, freedom of religion, discrimination, Jehovah's Witnesses, proselytizing. Khristiansko Sdruzhenie "Svidetelli lehova na" (Christian Association of jehovah witnesses) against Bulgaria on 9 March 1998 new registration of an association, Jehovah's witnesses, freedom of religion. Keller against Germany 4 March 1998: school administration, Scientology, respect for the religious convictions of parents. Tsavachidis against Greece of 28 October 1997: freedom of association, Jehovah's witnesses, legal opening of a place of worship. Efstratiou against Greece of 11 April 1996: religious beliefs, Jehovah's witnesses, teaching. [...]
[...] Already in the Kjeldsen, limits dawn we saw some this educational freedom. First, even assuming that the second sentence of Article 2 of Protocol I applies to public school, it would involve only the right for parents to have their children exempted from religious instruction to denominational. The Court further states in that judgment, it reflects the fact that the authorities provide substantial assistance to private schools, thereby providing parents an alternative. More importantly, the Court affirmed the primacy of the child's right to education, the right of parents to respect for their convictions, "the second sentence of Article 2 should be read in conjunction with the first which enshrines the right of everyone to education. [...]
APA Style reference
For your bibliographyOnline reading
with our online readerContent validated
by our reading committee
