Submitted by Eloise on
BELGIUM
Title:
Case No. 110/98 of 4 November 1998
Court:
Court of Arbitration
Date:
4 November 1998
CRC Provisions:
Article 2: Non-discrimination
Article 29(1)(d): Aims of education
Other International Provisions:
First Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Article 2 : Right to education
International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Article 5(e;v)
Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women, Article 10(a;b;c)
Domestic Provisions:
Constitution, Articles 24(1), 24(3) and 24(4): Right to education
Decree of the Flemish Community relating to education, 25 February 1997, Article 31(2)
Case summary:
Background:
This case concerned the request, brought forth by school children and their parents, for the Court to annul Article 31(2) of a Decree by the Flemish authority relating to education. Article 31(2) granted private schools who benefited from state subsidies the right to refuse admission to children on the basis of discretionary criteria, as long as the criterion was not unacceptable or against human dignity.
The claimants believed that this provision was contrary to the parents’ right to choose the place of education of their children, contained in Article 24 of the Belgian Constitution as well as various international instruments. They claimed that the vague definition of the inadmissibility criteria opened the door to discrimination based on gender, race, social status, etc.
Issue and resolution:
Right to education. Whether a state-subsidised private school can refuse the admission of students based on discretionary criteria without violating the freedom to choose the place of education. The Court decided that Article 31(2) was not contrary to the Constitution nor to international instruments, since the decision to refuse admission had to be justified and communicated to the applicant and could be referred to a judge for examination.
Court reasoning:
The Court stated that the freedom to choose the place of education was not unconditional.
The Court reminded the claimants that the meaning of Article 31(2) was that the schools could refuse students only for reasons “directly related to the school’s own educational project”. In addition, the school’s obligation to justify its decision as well as the possibility for the refused applicant to request judicial control ensured and strengthened the parents’ freedom of choice.
The Court further declared that the contested provision did not violate fundamental rights as expressed in the Constitution or in international treaties, including the CRC. Indeed, the provision stated that the applied criteria could not be unacceptable nor in violation of human dignity. In so far as such decisions would be declared illegal by the judge, the Court stated that the disputed provision protected fundamental rights and in particular the right to education and the non-discrimination principle guaranteed by the CRC.
Excerpts citing CRC and other relevant human rights instruments:
In French language:
“En adoptant la disposition entreprise, le législateur décrétal n’a pas davantage violé l’article 29, paragraphe 1, d), de la Convention relative aux droits de l’enfant - lu en combinaison avec l’article 24, § 1er, de la Constitution -, qui prévoit que l’éducation de l’enfant doit viser à préparer celui-ci à assumer les responsabilités de la vie dans une société libre, dans un esprit de compréhension, de paix, de tolérance, d’égalité entre les sexes et d’amitié entre tous les peuples et groupes ethniques, nationaux et religieux, et avec les personnes d’origine autochtone.”
“(...) L’article 2 de la Convention relative aux droits de l’enfant, adoptée à New York le 20 novembre 1989, dispose :
« 1. Les Etats parties s’engagent à respecter les droits qui sont énoncés dans la présente Convention et à les garantir à tout enfant relevant de leur juridiction, sans distinction aucune, indépendamment de toute considération de race, de couleur, de sexe, de langue, de religion, d’opinion politique ou autre de l’enfant ou de ses parents ou représentants légaux, de leur origine nationale, ethnique ou sociale, de leur situation de fortune, de leur incapacité, de leur naissance ou de toute autre situation.
2. Les Etats parties prennent toutes les mesures appropriées pour que l’enfant soit effectivement protégé contre toutes formes de discrimination ou de sanction motivées par la situation juridique, les activités, les opinions déclarées ou les convictions de ses parents, de ses représentants légaux ou des membres de sa famille. »
En prévoyant qu’une autorité scolaire de l’enseignement libre subventionné peut refuser l’inscription d’un élève moyennant une motivation écrite, mais qu’une inscription ne peut en aucun cas être refusée sur la base de critères incorrects qui compromettent la dignité humaine, le législateur décrétal garantit le respect des libertés et droits fondamentaux ainsi que le principe de non-discrimination, inscrits dans les dispositions conventionnelles précitées ou dans d’autres dispositions du droit international. En effet, des critères qui violeraient les libertés et droits fondamentaux des élèves ou qui seraient discriminatoires doivent être considérés comme incorrects ou comme compromettant la dignité humaine et doivent donc être réputés contraires à la disposition entreprise. Il appartient au juge d’apprécier cas par cas.”
“(...) L’article 2 du Premier Protocole additionnel à la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme dispose :
« Nul ne peut se voir refuser le droit à l’instruction. L’Etat, dans l’exercice des fonctions qu’il assumera dans le domaine de l’éducation et de l’enseignement, respectera le droit des parents d’assurer cette éducation et cet enseignement conformément à leurs convictions religieuses et philosophiques. »
La liberté de choix des parents implique que ceux-ci puissent choisir pour leurs enfants un enseignement qui correspond le plus à leurs conceptions philosophiques. C’est pour garantir cette liberté de choix que la communauté organise un enseignement neutre dans le respect des conceptions philosophiques, idéologiques ou religieuses des parents et des élèves (article 24, § 1er, alinéa 3, de la Constitution) et qu’elle subventionne les établissements d’enseignement dont la spécificité réside dans une conception religieuse, philosophique ou pédagogique déterminée.
Cette liberté n’implique pas que les parents et les élèves aient un droit inconditionnel d’inscription dans l’école de leur choix.”
As translated by CRIN:
“By adopting the disputed provision, the legislator did not violate Article 29, paragraph 1, d), of the CRC - read in combination with Article 24, paragraph 1, of the Constitution -, which states that the child’s education must aim to prepare him/her for responsible life in a free society, in the spirit of understanding, peace, tolerance, equality of sexes, and friendship among all peoples, ethnic, national and religious groups and persons of indigenous origin.”
“ (...) Article 2 of the CRC, adopted in New York on 20 November 1989, states :
“1. States Parties shall respect and ensure the rights set forth in the present Convention to each child within their jurisdiction without discrimination of any kind, irrespective of the child's or his or her parent's or legal guardian's race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national, ethnic or social origin, property, disability, birth or other status.
2. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that the child is protected against all forms of discrimination or punishment on the basis of the status, activities, expressed opinions, or beliefs of the child's parents, legal guardians, or family members.”
By stating that a state subsidised private school can refuse the enrolment of a student through a written justified decision, but that enrolment can never be refused on the basis of unacceptable criteria which compromise human dignity, the legislator guarantees the respect of fundamental rights and liberties as well as the non-discrimination principle, as inscribed in the treaty provisions cited above and in other provisions of international law. Indeed, criteria that would violate the students’ fundamental rights and liberties or that would be discriminatory must be considered as unacceptable or as compromising human dignity and thus be held as contrary to Article 31(2). The judge must assess each individual case as it arises.”
“(...) Article 2 of the First Protocol to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms states :
“No person shall be denied the right to education. In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religions and philosophical convictions.”
The parents’ freedom of choice implies that they can choose for their children a teaching that is closest to their philosophical beliefs. It is to guarantee that freedom of choice that the community organises a neutral teaching in the respect of the philosophical, ideological or religious beliefs of the parents and the students (Article 24 paragraph 1 of the Constitution), and that it subsidises teaching establishments which follow specific religious, philosophical or educational beliefs.
That freedom does not imply that the parents and the students have an unconditional right to enroll in the school of their choice.”
CRIN Comments:
CRIN believes this decision is partially consistent with the CRC. Children have a right to education under Article 28 of the Convention, as well as the right to non-discrimination under Article 2. Non-discrimination is an overarching principle of the Convention which can be jeopardised by provisions allowing children to be refused admission to schools on vague or discretionary grounds. Since the school is required to justify its decision and there is a possibility for judicial review of that decision, the possibility of breaching the rights of the child is minimised, provided that any challenge to the decision is heard as a matter of urgency and considered in line with the requirements of the CRC.
Citation:
Cour d’arbitrage, affaire n° 110/98, 4 novembre 1998, rôle n° 1168
Link to Full Judgment:
http://www.const-court.be/public/f/1998/1998-110f.pdf
This case summary is provided by the Child Rights International Network for educational and informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice.
