[неофициальный перевод]
ЕВРОПЕЙСКИЙ СУД ПО ПРАВАМ ЧЕЛОВЕКА
СУДЕБНОЕ РЕШЕНИЕ
КЬЕЛДСЕН (KJELDSEN), БУСК МАДСЕН (BUSK MADSEN)
И ПЕДЕРСЕН (PEDERSEN) ПРОТИВ ДАНИИ
(Страсбург, 7 декабря 1976 года)
(Извлечение)
КРАТКОЕ НЕОФИЦИАЛЬНОЕ ИЗЛОЖЕНИЕ ОБСТОЯТЕЛЬСТВ ДЕЛА
A. Основные факты
Заявители, которые являются родителями детей школьного
возраста, возражали против обязательного полового воспитания,
введенного в государственных школах Дании Законом от 27 мая
1970 г. Они полагали, что половое воспитание поднимает этические
вопросы, и поэтому предпочитали сами проводить обучение своих
детей в этой сфере. Однако компетентные органы отказали им в
просьбе освободить их детей от школьного обучения по этому
предмету.
B. Разбирательство в Комиссии по правам человека
Родители обратились в Европейскую комиссию по правам человека
в 1971 и 1972 гг., утверждая в своих жалобах, что половое
воспитание в школе противоречит их христианским убеждениям и
статье 2 Протокола N 1. Комиссия, признав жалобы приемлемыми,
объединила их в одно производство 19 июля 1972 г. В своем докладе
Комиссия пришла к выводу об отсутствии нарушений статьи 2
Протокола N 1 (семью голосами против семи, Председатель
воспользовался своим правом решающего голоса), статей 8 или 9
Конвенции (единогласно) и статьи 14 Конвенции (семью голосами
против четырех при трех воздержавшихся).
Дело было передано Европейской комиссией в Суд 24 июля 1975 г.
ИЗВЛЕЧЕНИЕ ИЗ СУДЕБНОГО РЕШЕНИЯ
ВОПРОСЫ ПРАВА
47. Суд должен сначала принять решение по двум предварительным
вопросам.
Первый касается заявления, сделанного г-ном и г-жой Кьелдсен,
о выделении их дела в самостоятельное производство (см. п. 11
выше).
Данное заявление, исходящее от лиц, которые не имеют права в
соответствии с Конвенцией передавать дела в Суд, не может повлечь
за собой прекращение данного разбирательства (см. Решение по делу
Де Бекера от 27 марта 1962 г. Серия A, т. 4, с. 23, п. 4). Пункт 1
статьи 47 Регламента Суда неприменим в данных обстоятельствах,
т.к. он относится исключительно к прекращению дела по просьбе
"стороны, которая обратилась в Суд", т.е. государством, имеющим
статус заявителя в судебном процессе (статья 1 п. "h"). Следует
признать, что п. 2 предусматривает, что Суд может, при соблюдении
п. 3, прекращать дела, переданные ему Комиссией, но вышеуказанный
пункт ставит это Решение в зависимость от существования "мирового
соглашения, договоренности или другого действия подобного рода,
обеспечивающих решение вопроса". Однако, как подчеркнул главный
представитель Комиссии на утреннем слушании 11 июня 1976 г., это
условие не было выполнено в деле Кьелдсенов. Более того,
прекращение дела без подтверждения Правительства было бы лишено
всякого практического значения в данных обстоятельствах: даже если
исключить жалобу N 5095/71, тем не менее жалобы г-на и г-жи Буск
Мадсен и г-на и г-жи Педерсен (N 5920/72 и N 5926/72
соответственно), поднимающие ту же самую основную проблему,
остались бы в производстве.
Этот последний довод привел Суд к решению отклонить
ходатайство о выделении дела в отдельное производство.
48. Второе, Суд считает необходимым определить объект
рассмотрения.
В 1972 и 1973 гг. Комиссия приняла жалобы, т.к. они оспаривали
соответствие Закона от 27 мая 1970 г., который делал половое
воспитание обязательным в государственных школах, статье 2
Протокола N 1. Комиссия признала жалобы неприемлемыми из-за
неисчерпания всех внутренних средств правовой защиты в той части,
в которой они основаны на "изданных директивах и других
административных мерах, принятых датскими властями" в отношении
методов ведения такого образования. В п. 141 своего доклада от
21 марта 1975 г., до того как сформулировать свое мнение по
существу данного дела, Комиссия указала, что в ее задачу входило
рассмотрение "датского законодательства, которое предусматривает
интегрированное половое обучение", а не "того, каким образом
обучение велось в различных школах". В п. 142 Комиссия указала,
что под законодательством она понимала Закон N 235 от 27 мая
1970 г., Постановление Правительства N 274 от 8 июня 1971 г. и
Постановление Правительства N 313 от 15 июня 1972 г. В кратком
перечне обстоятельств дела, данных в докладе, упоминается, кроме
того, "Руководство" от апреля 1971 г. по проблемам полового
воспитания в государственных школах. Обращение, явившееся
основанием для судебного разбирательства от 24 июня 1975 г., также
говорит о "датском законодательстве", а не только о Законе от
27 мая 1970 г. В памятной записке от 11 мая 1976 г. и во время
слушаний 1 и 2 июня 1976 г. представители Комиссии приводили
длинные выдержки из "Руководства" за апрель 1971 г. и из
Постановлений от 8 июня 1971 г. и от 15 июня 1972 г., хотя их
окончательные выводы относились исключительно к Закону от 27 мая
1970 г. Представители Комиссии выразили мнение, что, хотя Суд не
должен рассматривать "конкретные меры, посредством которых ведется
половое обучение в соответствующих школах", т.е. действия,
предпринимаемые "муниципальными властями и ассоциациями
родителей", он "может... рассмотреть различные действия общего
характера, предпринимаемые... Правительством"; они считают, что
контроль Суда распространяется на Постановления от 8 июня 1971 г.
и 15 июня 1972 г. "по крайней мере в той степени, в какой они
могут быть полезны для толкования Закона от 27 мая 1970 г.". Из
высказываний представителей следует, что Правительство и Комиссия
согласны с "этим толкованием решения о приемлемости", формулировки
которого содержат "определенные двусмысленности".
В памятной записке Правительства от 8 марта 1976 г. содержится
вывод, сделанный из п. 141 доклада Комиссии, что разбирательство
дела должно исходить из того, что Закон от 27 мая 1970 г.
"выполняется в соответствии с правилами, введенными Постановлением
Правительства от 15 июня 1972 г.". В "материалы, на которых должен
основываться Суд", Правительство включило Постановления и
циркуляры от 8 июня 1971 г. и 15 июня 1972 г.; в результате чего
Грефье, действуя по поручению Председателя Палаты, получил тексты
этих документов от Комиссии (Распоряжение от 20 марта 1976 г.).
Чтобы исключить всякое влияние неправильных представлений о том,
"каким образом проводится половое воспитание", Правительство
дополнительно предоставило секретариату английский перевод
"Руководства" от апреля 1971 г.; его представитель зачитал
выдержку из предисловия к "Руководству" во время устного
выступления 1 июня 1976 г.
В этих условиях Суд считает, что в его задачу входит
определение того, противоречат ли Закон от 27 мая 1970 г. и
представленные Суду подзаконные нормативные акты делегированного
законодательства Конвенции и Протоколу N 1; однако конкретные меры
по применению, решения о которых принимаются на уровне каждого
конкретного муниципалитета или учебного заведения, не входят в
сферу контроля Суда. Статья 1 Закона от 27 мая 1970 г. лишь
добавляет к списку обязательных "интегрированных" дисциплин, среди
прочих, половое воспитание. Министру образования было поручено
определить порядок реализации утвержденных правил (см. п. 22
выше). Постановления и циркуляры от 8 июня 1971 г. и 15 июня
1972 г., изданные в рамках имеющихся полномочий, образуют единое
целое с самим Законом, и, только ссылаясь на них, Суд может
оценить Закон; в противном случае передача данного дела в Суд вряд
ли была бы полезна. Тем не менее следует указать, как это уже
сделала Комиссия (п. 145 in fine отчета), что данное дело не
касается специальных, факультативных занятий по половому
воспитанию, предусмотренных Постановлением от 8 июня 1971 г. и
Постановлением от 15 июня 1972 г.; речь идет только о положениях,
касающихся полового воспитания, интегрированного в учебный процесс
в качестве обязательной дисциплины.
"Руководство" от апреля 1971 г., с другой стороны, не является
законодательным или нормативным, а только рабочим документом,
предназначенным помогать и давать советы администрации местных
школ; хотя Постановление (раздел 2) и циркуляр от 8 июня 1971 г.
упомянули его, нельзя сказать того же о циркуляре от 15 июня
1972 г. (см. п. 24 - 25 и 31 - 32 выше). Тем не менее им
продолжают пользоваться по всей стране и его часто цитируют
выступающие в Суде. Соответственно Суд будет принимать во внимание
"Руководство", т.к. оно способствует разъяснению сущности данного
законодательства.
Закон N 313 от 26 июня 1975 г., который окончательно вступил в
силу 1 августа 1976 г., не требует отдельного рассмотрения, т.к.
он не вносит никаких поправок в правовые нормы, относящиеся к
данному делу (см. п. 33 выше).
I. О предполагаемом нарушении статьи 2 Протокола N 1
49. Заявители ссылаются на статью 2 Протокола N 1, которая
гласит:
"Никому не может быть отказано в праве на образование.
Государство при осуществлении любых функций, которые оно принимает
на себя в области образования и обучения, уважает право родителей
обеспечивать, чтобы такие образование и обучение соответствовали
их собственным религиозным и философским убеждениям".
50. Основной аргумент Правительства, высказанный перед
Комиссией, состоит в том, что второе предложение статьи 2
неприменимо к государственным школам (п. 104 - 107 доклада и
памятная записка от 29 ноября 1973 г.), но его аргументы слегка
изменились с тех пор. В памятной записке от 8 марта 1976 г. и на
слушаниях 1 и 2 июня 1976 г. оно признало, что существование
частных школ не исключает возможности нарушений данной статьи. Тем
не менее Правительство подчеркивало, что Дания не заставляет
родителей отправлять своих детей в государственные школы; она
позволяет родителям самим обучать своих детей или организовывать
их обучение в домашних условиях, и, кроме того, посылать их в
частные учебные заведения, которым государство предоставляет
значительные субсидии, тем самым принимая на себя функции "в
области образования и обучения". В смысле статьи 2 Дания, как это
было заявлено, таким образом выполняет обязательства,
проистекающие из второго предложения данного положения.
Суд принимает к сведению, что в Дании частные школы
сосуществуют с системой государственного образования. Второе
предложение в статье 2 имеет обязательную силу для
Договаривающихся Сторон при выполнении ими каждого из обязательств
- оно говорит о "любых функциях", которые они возлагают на себя в
области образования и обучения, включая те, которые состоят в
организации и финансировании государственного образования. Более
того, второе предложение статьи 2 должно толковаться вместе с
первым, которое закрепляет право каждого на образование. Именно с
этим основным правом неразрывно связано право родителей на
уважение их религиозных и философских убеждений, и первое
предложение, так же, как и второе, не проводит разграничения между
государственным и частным обучением.
Подготовительные работы, которые, без сомнения, важны для
решения вопроса, вызвавшего такие долгие и бурные дискуссии,
подтверждают то толкование, которое возникает при первом чтении
статьи 2; они, бесспорно, демонстрируют, как напомнило
Правительство, то значение, которое придается многими членами
Парламентской Ассамблеи Совета Европы и рядом правительств свободе
обучения, т.е. свободе учреждать частные школы. Подготовительные
работы при этом никоим образом не раскрывают намерение заходить
дальше, чем гарантировать эту свободу. В отличие от некоторых
более ранних вариантов, окончательный текст не содержит прямого
провозглашения этой свободы, и многочисленные выступления и
предложения, упомянутые представителями Комиссии, показывают, что
не была упущена из виду необходимость гарантировать в системе
государственного обучения уважение религиозных и философских
убеждений родителей.
Второе предложение статьи 2 направлено, короче говоря, на
защиту возможности плюрализма в обучении, и наличие этой
возможности существенно важно для сохранения "демократического
общества", как это понимается в Конвенции. Благодаря могуществу
современного государства именно через государственное обучение
наилучшим образом может быть реализована эта цель.
Таким образом, Суд приходит к такому же выводу, к какому
пришла Комиссия, единогласно приняв Решение о том, что датские
государственные школы входят в сферу действия Протокола N 1. При
изучении вопроса, была ли нарушена статья 2, Суд не может
игнорировать, однако, что обязательства, которые Дания возложила
на себя в области образования и обучения, включают оказание
значительной помощи частным школам. Хотя доступ в эти школы
требует от родителей расходов, на что заявители уже справедливо
указывали, альтернативное решение, которое, таким образом,
предлагается, является фактором, который нельзя упускать из виду в
данном деле. Представители, выступающие от имени большинства
Комиссии, признали, что этому фактору не было уделено достаточно
внимания в п. 152 - 153 доклада.
51. Субсидиарный аргумент Правительства заключается в том, что
второе предложение статьи 2, даже если его действие
распространяется на государственные школы, предполагает право
родителей на освобождение их детей от занятий, предусматривающих
"религиозное воспитание, относящееся к какому-либо
вероисповеданию".
Суд не разделяет эту точку зрения. Статья 2, которая применима
к каждой функции государства в области образования и обучения, не
позволяет отделять преподавание религии от других предметов. Она
вменяет в обязанность государству уважать убеждения родителей
религиозного или философского характера, но в общей системе
изучаемых предметов.
52. Как уже видно из самой структуры статьи 2, она составляет
единое целое при доминировании первого предложения. Взяв на себя
обязательство не отказывать "в праве на образование",
Договаривающиеся Стороны гарантируют любому человеку, находящемуся
под их юрисдикцией, "право на доступ к учебным заведениям,
существующим в данное время", и "возможность воспользоваться
полученным образованием" "при официальном признании знаний после
окончания занятий" (см. Решение по делу "О языках в Бельгии" от
23 июля 1968 г. Серия A, т. 6, с. 30 - 32, п. 3 - 5).
Право, сформулированное во втором предложении статьи 2,
является составной частью этого основного права на образование
(см. п. 50 выше). Именно при выполнении естественного долга перед
своими детьми родители, несущие основную ответственность за
обучение и образование своих детей, могут потребовать от
государства уважать их религиозные и философские убеждения. Их
праву, таким образом, корреспондирует обязанность, тесно связанная
с осуществлением и использованием права на образование.
С другой стороны, "нужно толковать в целом положения
Конвенции" (см. вышеупомянутое Решение, с. 30, п. 1).
Соответственно два предложения статьи 2 должны быть истолкованы не
только во взаимосвязи, но и, в частности, в свете статей 8 - 10
Конвенции, которые провозглашают право каждого, включая родителей
и детей, "на уважение его личной и семейной жизни", "на свободу
мысли, совести и религии" и "свободу... получать и распространять
информацию и идеи".
53. Из предыдущего абзаца в первую очередь следует, что
формирование и планирование учебных программ входит в принципе в
компетенцию государств - участников. Это главным образом вопросы
целесообразности, по которым Суд не должен принимать решений и
которые могут сильно отличаться в зависимости от страны и
конкретного периода. В частности, второе предложение статьи 2
Протокола N 1 не запрещает государствам распространять с помощью
системы образования информацию или знания, прямо или косвенно
имеющие религиозный или философский характер. Статья не позволяет
родителям возражать против включения такого обучения или
образования в школьные программы, иначе вся утвержденная система
обучения рискует оказаться неосуществимой. На самом деле
представляется, что многие предметы, преподаваемые в школе, как
правило, имеют некоторый философский подтекст или окраску. То же
самое можно сказать о свойствах религии, если вспомнить, что есть
религии, которые формируют широкую систему догматов и моральных
установок, которая призвана давать ответы на любой вопрос
философского, космологического или этического характера.
Второе предложение статьи 2 подразумевает, с другой стороны,
что государство, выполняя обязательства, которые оно приняло на
себя в области образования и обучения, должно позаботиться о том,
чтобы информация и знания, включенные в учебную программу,
преподносились в объективной, критичной и плюралистической манере.
Государство не вправе стремиться внушать принципы, которые можно
расценить как неуважение религиозных и философских убеждений
родителей. Это та граница, которую нельзя переходить.
Такое толкование соответствует первому предложению статьи 2
Протокола N 1 и статьям 8 - 10 Конвенции, а также общему духу
самой Конвенции, являющейся инструментом, призванным поддерживать
и сохранять идеи и ценности демократического общества.
54. Для того чтобы изучить соответствие оспариваемого
законодательства статье 2 Протокола N 1, как она толкуется выше,
необходимо, избегая каких-либо оценок целесообразности данного
законодательства, учитывать реальную ситуацию, которой оно
соответствовало.
Датский законодатель, заручившись мнением квалифицированных
специалистов, взял за отправной пункт признанный факт, что в Дании
дети теперь без труда получают из разных источников интересующую
их информацию о половой жизни. Обучение по данному предмету в
государственных школах направлено не столько на сообщение знаний,
которых у них нет, либо которые они не могут получить другими
способами, сколько преследует цель дать эту информацию более
корректно, точно, объективно и научно. Обучение, организуемое и
осуществляемое в соответствии с данным спорным законодательством,
в основном направлено на предоставление ученикам более
качественной информации, что вытекает inter alia из предисловия к
"Руководству" от апреля 1971 г.
Даже если ограничиться только этим, совершенно ясно, что
некоторые учителя не смогут исключить из обучения определенные
оценки, способные проникать в религиозные и философские сферы,
поскольку при рассмотрении соответствующих вопросов оценка фактов
естественным образом приводит к суждениям, касающимся ценностных
понятий. Меньшинство в Комиссии справедливо подчеркивало это.
Постановления и циркуляры от 8 июня 1972 г., "Руководство" от
апреля 1971 г. и другие материалы, представленные Суду
(см. п. 20 - 32 выше), ясно показывают, что датское государство,
своевременно давая детям объяснения, которые оно считает
полезными, пытается предостеречь их, обратив их внимание на такие
тревожные явления, как рождение слишком большого количества детей
вне брака, вынужденные аборты и венерические болезни.
Государственные органы хотят дать ученикам возможность, когда
придет время, "заботиться о себе и проявлять внимание к другим в
этом отношении", "чтобы не оказаться или не поставить других в
трудное положение исключительно из-за недостатка знаний" (раздел 1
Постановления от 15 июня 1972 г.).
Хотя эти соображения этического порядка, они очень общие по
своему характеру и не влекут за собой выход за рамки того, что в
демократическом государстве может расцениваться как общественный
интерес. Изучение данного оспариваемого законодательства
фактически подтверждает тот факт, что оно никоим образом не
является попыткой внушить идеи, связанные с пропагандой
определенного сексуального поведения. Целью этого законодательства
не является восхваление секса или побуждение учеников начать
половую жизнь преждевременно, что опасно для их здоровья или
будущего и что многие родители считают предосудительным. Далее,
оно не влияет на право родителей просвещать и давать советы детям,
выполняя естественные обязанности воспитателей по отношению к
своим детям, или направлять их по пути, соответствующему их
собственным религиозным или философским убеждениям.
Конечно, могут встречаться злоупотребления в ходе применения
этих обязательных правил в данной школе или данным конкретным
учителем, и компетентные власти обязаны делать все возможное,
чтобы не было пренебрежения к религиозным и философским убеждениям
родителей на этом уровне из-за невнимательности, недостатка
здравого смысла или неуместного прозелитизма. Однако, как следует
из решений Комиссии по приемлемости заявлений, Суд в настоящее
время не рассматривает вопросы такого характера (см. п. 48 выше).
Суд, соответственно, пришел к выводу, что оспариваемое
законодательство само по себе никоим образом не посягает на
религиозные и философские убеждения заявителей в той мере, как это
запрещается вторым предложением статьи 2 Протокола N 1, которое
понимается в свете первого предложения этой статьи и Конвенции в
целом.
Кроме того, датское государство сохраняет для родителей,
которые, исходя из своих убеждений или мнений, хотят держать своих
детей подальше от интегрированного полового воспитания, реальную
возможность избежать этого; оно позволяет родителям либо доверить
своих детей частным школам, которые не связаны такими строгими
обязательствами и, кроме того, хорошо субсидируются государством
(п. 15, 18 и 34 выше), либо проводить обучение в домашних
условиях, при этом испытывая очевидные неудобства, связанные с
необходимостью прибегать к одному из этих альтернативных
вариантов.
55. Заявители также ссылаются на первое предложение статьи 2.
В этой связи достаточно отметить, что государство - ответчик не
лишало и не лишает их детей ни доступа к учебным заведениям,
существующим в Дании, ни права воспользоваться полученным
образованием при официальном признании знаний (Решение по делу
"О языках в Бельгии" от 23 июля 1968 г. Серия A, т. 6, с. 30 - 32,
п. 3 - 5).
II. О предполагаемом нарушении статьи 14 Конвенции
в сочетании со статьей 2 Протокола N 1
56. Заявители также утверждают, что они являются жертвами
дискриминации на почве религии при осуществлении своих прав,
гарантируемых статьей 2 Протокола N 1, что противоречит статье 14
Конвенции. Они подчеркивают, что датское законодательство
позволяет родителям освобождать своих детей от занятий по
религиозному воспитанию, проводимых в государственных школах, в то
время как оно не предоставляет подобных возможностей в отношении
курса полового воспитания, интегрированного в систему обучения
(см. п. 70, 80 и 171 - 172 доклада Комиссии).
Во-первых, Суд отмечает, что статья 14 запрещает в пределах,
предусмотренных гарантированными правами и свободами,
дискриминационное обращение на основании личных особенностей
("статуса"), которые отличают людей или группы людей друг от
друга. Однако в оспариваемом законодательстве нет ничего, что
позволяет предположить, что оно предусматривает такое обращение.
Более того, Суд так же, как и Комиссия (п. 173 доклада),
признает, что имеется существенное различие между религиозным
воспитанием и половым образованием, о котором идет речь в
рассматриваемом деле. Первое по определению служит распространению
догм, а не просто знаний; Суд уже установил, что это не относится
к последнему (см. п. 54 выше). Соответственно, разграничение,
против которого возражают заявители, основывается на различных
фактических обстоятельствах, соответствует требованиям статьи 14.
III. О предполагаемом нарушении статей 8 и 9 Конвенции
57. И, наконец, заявители, не предоставляя подробных
обоснований, ссылаются на статьи 8 и 9 Конвенции в сочетании со
статьей 2 Протокола N 1. Они утверждают, что законодательство,
против которого они возражают, вмешивается в их право на уважение
личной и семейной жизни и их право на свободу мысли, совести и
религии (п. 54 - 55, 72, 89 и 170 доклада Комиссии).
Однако Суд не находит никакого нарушения статей 8 и 9, которые
к тому же были приняты во внимание при толковании статьи 2
Протокола N 1 (см. п. 52 и 53 выше).
IV. По поводу применимости статьи 50 Конвенции
58. Не найдя нарушения Протокола N 1 или Конвенции, Суд
отмечает, что вопрос о применимости статьи 50 в данном деле не
возникает.
ПО ЭТИМ ОСНОВАНИЯМ СУД
1. Постановил шестью голосами против одного, что не было
нарушения статьи 2 Протокола N 1 или статьи 14 Конвенции в
сочетании с вышеуказанной статьей 2;
2. Постановил единогласно, что не было нарушения статей 8 и 9
Конвенции в сочетании со статьей 2 Протокола N 1.
Совершено на английском и французском языках, причем
французский текст является аутентичным, и оглашено во Дворце прав
человека в Страсбурге 7 декабря 1976 г.
Председатель
Джорджио Балладоре ПАЛЬЕРИ
Грефье
Марк-Андре ЭЙССЕН
В соответствии со статьей 51 п. 2 Конвенции и статьей 50 п. 2
Регламента Суда к настоящему Решению прилагается отдельное мнение
судьи Фердроса.
ОТДЕЛЬНОЕ МНЕНИЕ СУДЬИ ФЕРДРОСА
Я одобряю пункты 1 - 52, 55 и 57 Судебного решения, но, к
моему большому сожалению, я не мог голосовать за п. 1
постановляющей части или принять обоснования, данные выше (п. 53 -
54 и 56). Мои мотивы следующие.
Я согласен с отправным пунктом датского Правительства,
поддержанным в Судебном решении, а именно, что ни одно из
положений Конвенции не запрещает Договаривающимся Сторонам
интегрировать в свои школьные программы вопросы полового
воспитания и тем более делать соответствующее обучение в принципе
обязательным. Второе предложение статьи 2 Протокола N 1, таким
образом, не лишает государство возможности распространять в
государственных школах с помощью данного обучения объективную
информацию религиозного и философского характера. Однако эта
свобода, которой пользуется государство, ограничена вторым
предложением статьи 2 Протокола N 1, в соответствии с которой
родители могут требовать, чтобы в процессе обучения уважались их
религиозные и философские убеждения.
Поскольку заявители по данному делу считают себя жертвами
покушения на их "христианские убеждения", мы можем оставить в
стороне вопрос, как нужно понимать термин "философские убеждения".
Нам достаточно выяснить, уважало ли государство, против которого
поступила жалоба, христианские убеждения родителей в контексте
полового воспитания.
Можно признать, что утверждения заявителей в этом вопросе не
очень точны. Их жалобы тем не менее достаточно ясны, чтобы выявить
проблему. Заявители фактически возражают против того, что
государство слишком рано "подробно" знакомит детей с вопросами
секса; они признают, что монополия государства в сфере образования
лишает их основного права "гарантировать их детям образование в
соответствии с их собственными религиозными убеждениями". Из этого
становится ясно, что они основывают свои жалобы на широко
признанной христианской доктрине, в силу которой все, что влияет
на развитие сознания ребенка, т.е. его моральное наставничество,
входит в обязанности родителей, и поэтому государство не может в
этой сфере вставать между родителями и детьми против воли
родителей.
Заявители, вероятно, исповедуют ту же самую религию, что и
большинство населения страны, но они, возможно, принадлежат к
группе лиц, более преданных христианским традициям, чем их
соотечественники, которые либо более либеральны, либо безразличны
к религии. Однако, поскольку все права, гарантируемые Конвенцией и
ее Протоколами, являются правами каждого отдельного человека, Суд
не призван определять, нарушаются ли права лиц, принадлежащих к
какому-либо вероучению. У Суда есть единственное обязательство -
определить, уважались или нет в данном конкретном случае права
заявителей.
Таким образом, возникает вопрос, могли ли заинтересованные в
настоящем судебном разбирательстве родители в соответствии со
статьей 2, процитированной выше, возражать против обязательного
полового воспитания в государственной школе, даже если, как в
данных обстоятельствах, такое воспитание не связано с попытками
внушения определенного поведения.
Чтобы ответить на этот вопрос, мне кажется необходимым
разграничить, с одной стороны, фактическую информацию о
человеческой сексуальности, которая входит в сферу изучения
естественных наук, в первую очередь биологии, а с другой -
информацию, относящуюся к сексуальной практике, включая
контрацепцию. Такое разграничение необходимо, по моему мнению, в
связи с тем, что первая нейтральна с точки зрения морали, в то
время как последняя, даже если она преподается несовершеннолетним
в объективной манере, всегда влияет на развитие их сознания. Из
этого следует, что даже объективная информация о половой жизни,
если она дается слишком рано в школе, может оскорблять
христианские убеждения родителей. Последние при этом имеют право
возражать.
Нельзя ссылаться на статью 10 Конвенции, которая олицетворяет
свободу каждого получать и передавать информацию, чтобы
опровергнуть это мнение, т.к. статья 2 Протокола N 1 представляет
собой специальную норму права, частично отменяющую общий принцип
статьи 10 Конвенции. Статья 2 Протокола N 1, таким образом, дает
право родителям ограничивать свободу передавать их детям, не
достигшим совершеннолетия, информацию, влияющую на развитие их
сознания.
Из принятого Решения видно, что вышеупомянутое положение
статьи 2 запрещает только обучение с целью внушения принципов.
Однако это положение не содержит никакого указания, оправдывающего
ограничительное толкование такого рода. Напротив, оно требует,
чтобы государства безоговорочно уважали религиозные и философские
убеждения родителей; в ней не проводится никакого различия между
целями, которые преследует образование. Поскольку заявители
считают себя жертвами ввиду покушения на их "христианские
убеждения", ставшего результатом обязательного присутствия их
детей на занятиях с "подробным" изучением проблем секса, Суд
должен был ограничиться определением, если имелось сомнение,
соответствует ли эта жалоба верованиям, которые исповедуют
заявители.
В этом отношении мне представляется, что полномочия суда
аналогичны полномочиям органов, отвечающих в различных странах за
проверку истинности утверждений лиц, призванных на военную службу,
утверждающих, что их религиозные или философские убеждения не
позволяют им носить оружие. Эти органы должны уважать идеологию
заинтересованных лиц, если такая идеология ясно сформулирована.
Различия между информацией, относящейся к знаниям о
человеческой сексуальности в целом, и информацией, касающейся
сексуальной практики, признаны в самом датском законодательстве. В
то время как частные школы по закону должны включать в свои
учебные программы курс биологии о воспроизводстве человека, им дан
выбор - соблюдать или нет другие правила, обязательные для
государственных школ, в отношении вопросов секса. Сам законодатель
признает, что информация о сексуальной практике может быть
отделена от другой информации на эту тему, и поэтому освобождение,
предоставляемое детям в отношении конкретного курса первой
категории, не мешает интеграции в школьную программу научных
знаний на эту тему.
Датский закон о государственных школах никоим образом не
освобождает детей тех родителей, которые имеют религиозные
убеждения, отличные от убеждений законодателей, от посещения всех
занятий по половому воспитанию. Поэтому из этого следует, что
датский закон в рамках вышесказанного не соответствует второму
предложению статьи 2 Протокола N 1.
На этот вывод не влияет право родителей посылать детей в
частную школу, субсидируемую государством, или обучать их дома. С
одной стороны, право родителей - это чисто индивидуальное право, в
то время как открытие частной школы всегда предполагает
существование определенной группы лиц, разделяющих определенные
убеждения. Поскольку государство должно уважать религиозные
убеждения родителей, даже если существует одна супружеская пара,
чьи убеждения в отношении развития сознания их детей отличаются от
убеждений большинства населения в стране или в данной конкретной
школе, оно может исполнить эту конкретную обязанность, только
освободив детей от занятий, касающихся сексуальной практики. Более
того, нельзя не признать, что образование в частной школе, даже в
той, которая субсидируется государством, и обучение дома всегда
влекут за собой материальные издержки для родителей. Таким
образом, если заявители не будут иметь права освобождать своих
детей от занятий, о которых идет речь, будет существовать
неоправданная дискриминация, противоречащая статье 14 Конвенции,
ставящая их в неравное положение с родителями, чьи религиозные и
моральные убеждения соответствуют убеждениям датских
законодателей.
EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CASE OF KJELDSEN, BUSK MADSEN AND PEDERSEN
JUDGMENT
(Strasbourg, 7.XII.1976)
In the case of Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen,
The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance
with Article 43 (art. 43) of the Convention for the Protection of
Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as
"the Convention") and Rules 21 and 22 of the Rules of Court, as a
Chamber composed of the following judges:
Mr. G. Balladore Pallieri, President,
Mr. A. Verdross,
Mr. M. Zekia,
Mrs. H. Pedersen,
Mr. S. Petren,
Mr. R. Ryssdal,
Mr. D. Evrigenis,
and also Mr. M.-A. Eissen, Registrar, and Mr. H. Petzold,
Deputy Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 3 and 4 June and then on
5 November 1976,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the
last-mentioned date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case of Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen was referred
to the Court by the European Commission of Human Rights
(hereinafter referred to as "the Commission"). The case originated
in three applications (nos. 5095/71, 5920/72 and 5926/72) against
the Kingdom of Denmark lodged with the Commission in 1971 and 1972
by Viking and Annemarie Kjeldsen, Arne and Inger Busk Madsen, and
Hans and Ellen Pedersen, all parents of Danish nationality; the
joinder of the said applications was ordered by the Commission on
19 July 1973.
2. The Commission's request, to which was attached the report
provided for under Article 31 (art. 31) of the Convention, was
filed with the registry of the Court on 24 July 1975, within the
period of three months laid down by Articles 32 para. 1 and 47
(art. 32-1, art. 47). The request referred to Articles 44 and 48
(art. 44, art. 48) and to the declaration made on 7 April 1972 by
the Kingdom of Denmark recognising the compulsory jurisdiction of
the Court (Article 46) (art. 46). The purpose of the Commission's
request is to obtain a decision from the Court as to whether or
not the facts of the case disclose a breach by the respondent
State of its obligations under Article 2 of the Protocol (P1-2) of
20 March 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "Protocol No. 1"); it
also makes reference to Articles 8, 9 and 14 (art. 8, art. 9,
art. 14) of the Convention.
3. On 26 July 1975, in the presence of the Registrar, the
President of the Court drew by lot the names of five of the seven
judges called upon to sit as members of the Chamber;
Mrs. H. Pedersen, the elected judge of Danish nationality, and
Mr. G. Balladore Pallieri, the President of the Court, were ex
officio members under Article 43 (art. 43) of the Convention and
Rule 21 para. 3 (b) of the Rules of Court respectively. One of the
members of the Chamber, namely Mr. J. Cremona, was subsequently
prevented from taking part in the consideration of the case; he
was replaced by the first substitute judge, Mr. M. Zekia.
Mr. Balladore Pallieri assumed the office of President of the
Chamber in accordance with Rule 21 para. 5.
4. The President of the Chamber ascertained, through the
Registrar, the views of the Agent of the Government of the Kingdom
of Denmark (hereinafter referred to as "the Government") and of
the delegates of the Commission regarding the procedure to be
followed. By an Order of 8 September 1975, the President of the
Chamber decided that the Government should file a memorial within
a time-limit expiring on 1 December 1975 and that the delegates of
the Commission should be entitled to file a memorial in reply
within two months of receipt of the Government's memorial.
5. On 12 November 1975, the Agent of the Government advised
the Registrar of his intention to contest the jurisdiction of the
Court in the present case.
In accordance with the leave granted by the President of the
Chamber, the Government's memorial, filed with the registry on
29 November 1975, dealt exclusively with this preliminary
question. The Government referred therein to the declaration
whereby, on 7 April 1972, they recognised "the compulsory
jurisdiction" of the Court "ipso facto and without special
agreement, in respect of any other Contracting Party to [the
Convention] accepting the same obligations, subject to
reciprocity". In conclusion, they submitted:
(i) that the said declaration "is expressly limited to cases
brought before the Court by another declarant State";
(ii) "that such limitation of the scope of declarations made
under Article 46 (art. 46) is not excluded either by the provision
or by the structure of the Convention";
(iii) "that in any event" the Government "cannot be held to be
subject to the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court beyond the
express wording" of their declaration.
Emphasising in addition that they had not accepted ad hoc the
jurisdiction of the Court as regards the instant case (Article 48
of the Convention) (art. 48), the Government invited the Court to
find that it had "no jurisdiction to deal with the merits of the
present cases".
6. By a message received at the registry on 16 January 1976,
the Agent of the Government informed the Registrar that, following
a debate the previous day in the Danish Parliament, his Government
had "decided to withdraw with immediate effect [their] preliminary
objection, thus accepting ad hoc the jurisdiction of the Court".
7. At a meeting in Strasbourg on 20 January 1976, the Chamber
took cognisance of the said message and instructed the President
to advise the Government that formal note thereof had been taken;
this task the President discharged by means of an Order of
28 January.
The Chamber noted that its jurisdiction was henceforth
established for the case at issue, whether on the basis of the
special consent expressed in that message or by virtue of the
general declaration made by the Kingdom of Denmark on 7 April 1972
under Article 46 (art. 46) of the Convention, as the delegates of
the Commission contended in a memorial filed with the registry on
26 January 1976.
8. By the same Order of 28 January 1976, the President of the
Chamber settled the written procedure as regards the merits of the
case. Having consulted, through the Registrar, the Agent of the
Government and the delegates of the Commission in this connection,
he decided that the Government should file a memorial not later
than 10 March 1976 and that the delegates of the Commission should
be entitled to file a memorial in reply within two months of
receipt of the Government's memorial.
The Government's memorial was received at the registry on
11 March, that of the delegates on 12 May 1976.
9. On 20 March 1976, the President of the Chamber instructed
the Registrar to invite the Commission to produce certain
documents, which were communicated to the registry on 26 March.
10. After consulting, through the Registrar, the Agent of the
Government and the delegates of the Commission, the President of
the Chamber decided by an Order of 19 May 1976 that the oral
hearings should open on 1 June 1976.
11. In a telegram of 13 May 1976 addressed to the Commission's
principal delegate, Mr. and Mrs. Kjeldsen declared that they
withdrew their application. The Secretary to the Commission
notified the Registrar of this on 21 May; he specified at the same
time that, having considered the matter, the Commission had
decided to request the Court not to strike the application out of
its list.
Mr. and Mrs. Kjeldsen in addition wrote directly to the
Registrar on 17 and 27 May 1976. In their letters, which were
drafted in somewhat violent terms, they gave as the explanation
for their "discontinuance" the far-reaching divergences between
their own arguments and those of the applicants Busk Madsen and
Pedersen. As they objected to the Commission's having ordered the
joinder of the three applications, they requested the Court, in
the alternative, to postpone the hearings until a later date and
to examine their case separately.
12. On 24 and 31 May and then on 1 June 1976, the Government
communicated several documents to the Court.
13. The oral hearings were held in public at the Human Rights
Building, Strasbourg, on 1 and 2 June 1976.
There appeared before the Court:
- for the Government:
- Mr. A. Spang-Hanssen, Barrister at the Supreme Court of
Denmark, Agent;
- Mr. J. Munck-Hansen, Head of Division at the Ministry of
Education,
- Mr. T. Rechnagel, Head of Division at the Legal Department
of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
- Mr. N. Eilschou-Holm, Head of Division at the Ministry of
Justice, Advisers;
- for the Commission:
- Mr. F. Welter, Principal Delegate,
- Mr. J. Frowein, Delegate.
The Court heard addresses by Mr. Welter and Mr. Frowein for
the Commission and by Mr. Spang-Hanssen for the Government, as
well as their replies to questions put by the Court.
AS TO THE FACTS
14. The applicants, who are parents of Danish nationality,
reside in Denmark. Mr. Viking Kjeldsen, a galvaniser, and his wife
Annemarie, a schoolteacher, live in Varde; Mr. Arne Busk Madsen, a
clergyman, and his wife Inger, a schoolteacher, come from
{Abenra} <*>; Mr. Hans Pedersen, who is a clergyman, and Mrs.
Ellen Pedersen have their home in {Alborg}.
--------------------------------
<*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке
набраны латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.
All three couples, having children of school age, object to
integrated, and hence compulsory, sex education as introduced into
State primary schools in Denmark by Act No. 235 of 27 May 1970,
amending the State Schools Act (Lov om aendring af lov om
folkeskolen, hereinafter referred to as "the 1970 Act").
Primary education in general
15. According to Article 76 of the Danish Constitution, all
children have the right to free education in the State primary
schools (folkeskolen), although parents are not obliged to enrol
them there and may send them to a private school or instruct them
at home.
During the school year 1970/71, a total of 716,665 pupils were
attending 2,471 schools, of which 277 were private with 43,689
pupils. Some parents chose to educate their children at home.
16. At the time of the facts at issue, primary education in
State schools was governed by the State Schools Act (Lov om
folkeskolen) (a consolidated version of which was set out in
Executive Order No. 279 of 8 July 1966), which had been amended on
various occasions between 1966 and 1970.
Primary education lasted for nine years; a tenth year, as well
as a pre-school year for children of five to six years, were
voluntary.
The subjects taught in the first four years were Danish,
writing, arithmetic, knowledge of Christianity
(kristendomskundskab), history, geography, biology, physical
training, music, creative art and needlework. In the fifth and
sixth years, English and woodwork were added, and in the seventh
year German, mathematics, natural sciences and domestic science.
As from the eighth year the pupils were, to some extent, allowed
to choose from these courses the subjects they preferred.
Under the Act, the Minister of Education determined the
objectives of schooling and the local school authorities fixed the
contents of the curriculum and the number of lessons. There were,
however, two exceptions to this rule. Firstly, religious
instruction was to be in conformity with the Evangelical Lutheran
doctrine of the National Church, but children might be exempted
therefrom. Secondly, the legislator had directed schools to
include in their curricula, often in conjunction with traditional
subjects, certain new topics such as road safety, civics, hygiene
and sex education.
17. The administration of State schools in Denmark is largely
decentralised. These institutions are run by the municipal
council, the highest education authority in each of the some 275
municipalities in that country, as well as by a school commission
and a school board.
The school commission (skolekommissionen) is as a general rule
composed of eleven members of whom six are elected by the
municipal council and five by the parents. The commission, in
consultation with the teachers' council and within the limits laid
down by law, prepares the curriculum for the schools within its
district. The curriculum must be approved by the municipal
council. To assist these bodies in the performance of their tasks,
the Minister of Education issues guidelines prepared by the State
Schools' Curriculum Committee (hereinafter referred to as "the
Curriculum Committee"), set up in 1958.
Each State school has a school board (skolenaevn) which
comprises three or five members; one member is chosen by the
municipal council, the two or four others by the parents. The
board supervises the school and organises co-operation between
school and parents. It decides, upon recommendation from the
teachers' council, what teaching aids and in particular what books
are to be used by the school and it also determines the
distribution of lessons among the teachers.
18. Primary education at private schools or at home must not
fall below the standards laid down for State schools; it must
cover the same compulsory subjects and be of comparable quality.
While a school may be established without any advance approval, it
is subsequently supervised by the school commissions in order to
ensure, in particular, that adequate instruction is given in
Danish, writing and arithmetic. The same applies to education
given in the home; if the school commission finds twice in
succession that such teaching is inadequate, the parents are
required to send the child to a State or private school.
The State supports private schools provided that they have not
less than twenty pupils in all and not less than ten pupils per
class. The State subsidises 85 per cent of their running costs
(principal's and teachers' salaries, maintenance of buildings,
heating, electricity, water, cleaning, insurance, etc.). In
addition, private schools may be granted government loans on
favourable terms for construction and improvement of buildings. As
a result, parents who enrol their children at a private school do
not in general have to bear school fees in excess of 1,200 Kroner
per child per annum; during the 1973/1974 school year their
average expenditure scarcely exceeded 1,050 Kroner. The Danish
Parliament voted in May 1976 in favour of a proposal which would
oblige municipalities to bear a large proportion of the cost of
transport for children attending private schools.
The statistics on private schools show that, in the school
year 1973/74, there were about seventy "free" schools; one hundred
and one private grammar schools without special religious
background; twenty-five Catholic schools; nineteen German minority
schools; ten schools for members of other religious societies;
eight "Christian free" schools; and some thirty-five other
schools.
The applicants claim that there are insufficient private
schools and that their pupils frequently have to travel long
distances to attend them; moreover, parents wishing to send their
children to a private school in Copenhagen have to enter them on
waiting lists at least three years in advance.
Sex education
19. In Denmark, sex education in State schools has been a
topic of discussion for thirty-five years. As early as 1945, sex
education was introduced in the State schools of Copenhagen and
several institutions outside the capital copied this example.
Nevertheless, the Minister of Education spoke against compulsory
sex education when the question was raised in 1958.
In 1960, the Curriculum Committee published a "Guide to
teaching in State schools" which distinguished between instruction
on the reproduction of man and sex education proper. The Committee
recommended that the former be integrated in the biology syllabus
while the latter should remain optional for children and teachers
and be provided by medical staff. The Committee also advised that
guidelines for schools be drawn up on the contents of, and the
terminology to be used in, sex education.
In a Circular of 8 April 1960, the Minister of Education
adopted the Committee's conclusions: as from the school year
1960/61 reproduction of man became a compulsory part of biology
lessons whereas an official guide issued by the Ministry, dating
from September 1961, specified that only those children whose
parents had given their express consent should receive sex
education proper.
20. The Danish Government, anxious to reduce the disconcerting
increase in the frequency of unwanted pregnancies, instructed a
committee in 1961 to examine the problem of sex education
(Seksualoplysningsudvalget). The setting up of such a committee
had been urged, among others, by the National Council of Danish
Women (Danske Kvinders Nationalraad) under the chairmanship of
Mrs. Else-Merete Ross, a Member of Parliament, and by the Board of
the Mothers' Aid Institutions ({Modrehjaelpsinstitutionernes}
Bestyrelse). Every year the latter bodies received applications
for assistance from about 6,000 young unmarried mothers of whom
half were below twenty years of age and a quarter below seventeen.
In addition, many children, often of very young parents, were born
within the first nine months after marriage. Legal abortions, for
their part, numbered about 4,000 every year and, according to
expert opinions, illegal abortions about 15,000 whereas the annual
birth rate was hardly more than 70,000.
21. In 1968, after a thorough examination of the problem, the
above-mentioned committee, which was composed of doctors,
educationalists, lawyers, theologians and government experts,
submitted a report (No. 484) entitled "Sex Education in State
Schools" (Seksualundervisning i Folkeskolen m.v., Betaenkning
Nr. 484). Modelling itself on the system that had been in force in
Sweden for some years, the committee recommended in its report
that sex education be integrated into compulsory subjects on the
curriculum of State schools. However, there should be no
obligation for teachers to take part in this teaching.
The report was based on the idea that it was essential for
sexual instruction to be adapted to the children's different
degrees of maturity and to be taught in the natural context of
other subjects, for instance when questions by the children
presented the appropriate opportunity. This method appeared to the
committee particularly suited to prevent the subject from becoming
delicate or speculative. The report emphasised that instruction in
the matter should take the form of discussions and informal talks
between teachers and pupils. Finally it gave an outline of the
contents of sex education and recommended the drawing up of a new
guide for State schools.
22. In March 1970, the Minister of Education tabled a Bill
before Parliament to amend the State Schools Act. The Bill
provided, inter alia, that sex education should become obligatory
and an integrated part of general teaching in State primary
schools. In this respect, the Bill was based on the
recommendations of the committee on sex education, with one
exception: following a declaration from the National Teachers'
Association, it did not grant teachers a general right of
exemption from participation in such instruction.
The Bill had received the support not only of this Association
but also of the National Association of School and Society
representing on the national level education committees, school
boards and parents' associations, and of the National Association
of Municipal Councils.
Section 1 para. 25 of the 1970 Act, which was passed
unanimously by Parliament and became law on 27 May 1970, added
"library organisation and sex education" to the list of subjects
to be taught, set out in Section 17 para. 6 of the State Schools
Act. Accordingly the latter text henceforth read as follows
({Bekendtgorelse} No. 300 of 12 June 1970):
"In addition to the foregoing, the following shall also apply
to teaching in primary schools:
road safety, library organisation and sex education shall form
an integral part of teaching in the manner specified by the
Minister of Education.
..."
The Act entered into force on 1 August 1970. As early as
25 June, a Circular from the Minister of Education (Cirkulaere om
aendring af folkeskoleloven) had advised municipal councils,
school commissions, school boards, teachers' councils and
headmasters of schools outside Copenhagen "that further texts,
accompanied by new teaching instructions, on sex education would
be issued". The Circular specified that "henceforth, parents
(would) still have the possibility of exempting their children
from such education and teachers that of not dispensing it".
23. After the passing of the 1970 Act, the Minister of
Education requested the Curriculum Committee to prepare a new
guide to sex education in State schools intended to replace the
1961 guide (paragraph 19 above). The new guide (Vejledning om
seksualoplysning i folkeskolen, hereinafter referred to as "the
Guide") was completed in April 1971; it set out the objectives of
sex education as well as certain general principles that ought to
govern it, and suggested detailed curricula for the various
classes.
24. On the basis of the recommendations in the Guide, the
Minister of Education laid down in Executive Order No. 274 of
8 June 1971 ({Bekendtgorelse} om seksualoplysning i folkeskolen)
the rules of which he had given notice in his Circular of 25 June
1970.
The Executive Order - which applied to primary education and
the first level of secondary education in State schools outside
Copenhagen - was worded as follows:
"Section 1 (1) The objective of sex education shall be to
impart to the pupils knowledge which could:
(a) help them 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 relationships;
(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.
(2) Sex education at all levels shall form part of the
instruction given, in the general school subjects, in particular
Danish, knowledge of Christianity, biology (hygiene), history
(civics) and domestic relations. In addition, a general survey of
the main topics covered by sex education may be given in the sixth
and ninth school years.
Section 2 (1) The organisation and scope of sex education
shall be laid down in or in accordance with the curriculum.
Assistance in this respect is to be obtained from the Guide issued
by the State Schools' Curriculum Committee. If the special
instruction referred to in the second sentence of Section 1
para. 2 is provided in the sixth and ninth years, a small number
of lessons shall be set aside each year for this purpose.
(2) Restrictions may not be imposed upon the range of matters
dealt with in accordance with sub-section 1 so as to render
impossible the fulfilment of the purpose of sex education.
(3) The restrictions on the carrying out of sex education in
schools, as indicated in Part 4 of the Guide, shall apply
regardless of the provisions of the curriculum.
Section 3 (1) Sex education shall be given by the teachers
responsible for giving lessons on the subjects with which it is
integrated in the relevant class and in accordance with the
directives of the principal of the school. If it is not clear from
the curriculum which subjects are linked to the various topics to
be taught, the class teachers shall distribute the work, as far as
need be, in accordance with the recommendation of the teachers'
council; this latter opinion must be approved by the school board
pursuant to section 27 para. 5 of the School Administration Act.
(2) A teacher cannot be compelled against his will to give the
special instruction in the sixth and ninth years referred to in
the second sentence of section 1 para. 2.
Section 4 (1) The present Order shall come into force on
1 August 1971.
(2) At the same time the right of parents to have their
children exempted from sex education given at school shall cease.
They may nevertheless, on application to the principal of the
school, have them exempted from the special instruction referred
to in the second sentence of section 1 para. 2.
(3) ..."
25. A Ministry of Education Circular (Cirkulaere om
seksualoplysning i folkeskolen), also dated 8 June 1971 and sent
to the same authorities as that of 25 June 1970 (paragraph 22
above), gave the recipients, inter alia, certain particulars on
the preparation of State school curricula in this field. It drew,
in particular, their attention to the fact that "it was for the
school commission, after discussion with the joint council of
teachers, to prepare draft provisions governing sex education to
be included in the curricula of the schools of the municipality".
Recalling that these provisions may take the form of a simple
reference to the recommendations in the Guide, the Circular
pointed out that the Guide gave, for the fifth to tenth year
classes, various possibilities as regards the manner and scope of
teaching. Thus, if there were a simple reference to the Guide, "it
is for the institution (teachers' council) to take a decision in
this respect with the agreement of the school board".
26. The objectives set out in the Executive Order of 8 June
1971 were identical with those of the Guide, except that the
latter contains an addition to the effect that schools must try to
develop in pupils openness with regard to the sexual aspects of
human life and to bring about such openness through an attitude
that will make them feel secure.
27. The principle of integration, provided for in paragraph 2
of section 1 of the Executive Order, is explained as follows in
the Guide:
"The main purpose of integration is to place sex guidance in a
context where the sexuality of man does not appear as a special
phenomenon. Sexuality is not a purely physical matter ... nor is
it a purely technical matter .... On the other hand it is not of
such emotional impact that it cannot be taken up for objective and
sober discussion. ... The topic should therefore form an integral
part of the overall school education ..."
28. As for the definition of the manner and scope of sex
education (section 2 para. 1 of the Executive Order), the Guide
indicates the matters that may be included in the State school
curricula.
In the first to fourth years instruction begins with the
concept of the family and then moves on to the difference between
the sexes, conception, birth and development of the child, family
planning, relations with adults whom the children do not know and
puberty.
The list of subjects suggested for the fifth to seventh years
includes the sexual organs, puberty, hormones, heredity, sexual
activities (masturbation, intercourse, orgasm), fertilisation,
methods of contraception, venereal diseases, sexual deviations (in
particular homosexuality) and pornography.
The teaching given in the eighth to tenth years returns to the
matters touched on during the previous years but puts the accent
on the ethical, social and family aspects of sexual life. The
Guide mentions sexual ethics and sexual morals; different views on
sexual life before marriage; sexual and marital problems in the
light of different religious and political viewpoints; the role of
the sexes; love, sex and faithfulness in marriage; divorce, etc.
29. The Guide advocates an instruction method centred on
informal talks between teachers and children on the basis of the
latter questions. It emphasises that "the instruction must be so
tactful as not to offend or frighten the child" and that it "must
respect each child's right to adhere to conceptions it has
developed itself". To the extent that the discussion bears on
ethical and moral problems of sexual life, the Guide recommends
teachers to adopt an objective attitude; it specifies:
"The teacher should not identify himself with or dissociate
himself from the conceptions dealt with. However, it does not
necessarily prevent the teacher from showing his personal view.
The demand for objectivity is amplified by the fact that the
school accepts children from all social classes. It must be
possible for all parents to reckon safely on their children not
being influenced in a unilateral direction which may deviate from
the opinion of the home. It must be possible for the parents to
trust that the ethical basic points of view will be presented
objectively and soberly."
The Guide also directs teachers not to use vulgar terminology
or erotic photographs, not to enter into discussions of sexual
matters with a single pupil outside the group and not to impart to
pupils information about the technique of sexual intercourse
(section 2 para. 3 of the Executive Order).
The applicants claim, however, that in practice vulgar
terminology is used to a very wide extent. They refer to a book by
Bent H. {Claesson} called "Dreng og Pige, Mand og Kvinde" ("Boy
and Girl, Man and Woman") of which 55,000 copies have been sold in
Denmark. According to them it frequently uses vulgar terminology,
explains the technique of coitus and shows photographs depicting
erotic situations.
30. On the subject of relations between school and parents,
the Guide points out, inter alia:
"In order to achieve an interaction between sex education at
the school and at home respectively, it will be expedient to keep
parents acquainted with the manner and scope of the sex education
given at school. Parent class meetings are a good way of
establishing this contact between school and parents. Discussions
there will provide the opportunity for emphasising the objective
of sexual instruction at the school and for making it clear to
parents that it is not the school's intention to take anything
away from them but rather ... to establish co-operation for the
benefit of all parties. It can also be pointed out to parents that
the integrated education allows the topic to be taken up exactly
where it arises naturally in the other fields of instruction and
that, generally, this is only practicable if sex education is
compulsory for pupils. ... Besides, through his contacts with the
homes the class teacher will be able to learn enough about the
parents' attitude towards the school, towards their own child and
towards its special problems. During discussions about the sex
education given by the school, sceptical parents will often be led
to realise the justification for co-operation between school and
home in this field as well. Some children may have special
requirements or need special consideration and it will often be
the parents of these children who are difficult to contact. The
teacher should be aware of this fact. When gradually the teacher,
homes and children have come to know each other, a relationship of
trust may arise which will make it possible to begin sex education
in a way that is satisfactory to all parties."
31. The Executive Order No. 313 of 15 June 1972, which came
into force on 1 August 1972, repealed the Executive Order of
8 June 1971. The new Order reads:
"Section 1
(1) The objective of the sex education provided in Folkeskolen
shall be to impart to the pupils such knowledge of sex life as
will enable them to take care of themselves and show consideration
for others in that respect.
(2) Schools are therefore required, as a minimum, to provide
instruction on the anatomy of the reproductive organs, on
conception and contraception and on venereal diseases to such
extent that the pupils will not later in life land themselves or
others in difficulties solely on account of lack of knowledge.
Additional and more far-reaching goals of instruction may be
established within the framework of the objective set out in
sub-section (1) above.
(3) Sex education shall start not later than in the third
school year; it shall form part of the instruction given in the
general school subjects, in particular Danish, knowledge of
Christianity, biology (hygiene), history (civics) and domestic
relations. In addition, a general survey of the main topics
covered by sex education may be given in the sixth or seventh and
in the ninth school years.
Section 2
The organisation and scope of sex education shall be laid down
in or in accordance with the curriculum. If the special
instruction referred to in the second sentence of section 1
para. 3 is provided, a small number of lessons shall be set aside
for this purpose in the relevant years.
Section 3
(1) Sex education shall be given by the teachers responsible
for giving lessons on the subjects with which it is integrated in
the relevant class and in accordance with the directives of the
principal of the school. If it is not clear from the curriculum
which subjects are linked to the various topics to be taught, the
class teachers shall distribute the work, as far as need be, in
accordance with the recommendation of the teachers' council; this
latter opinion must be approved by the school board pursuant to
section 27 para. 5 of the School Administration Act.
(2) A teacher cannot be compelled against his will to give the
special instruction referred to in the second sentence of
section 1 para. 3. Nor shall it be incumbent upon the teacher to
impart to pupils information about coital techniques or to use
photographic pictures representing erotic situations.
Section 4
On application to the principal of the school, parents may
have their children exempted from the special instruction referred
to in the second sentence of section 1 para. 3.
..."
32. In a Circular of 15 June 1972 (Cirkulaere om aendring af
reglerne om seksualoplysning i folkeskolen), sent to the same
authorities as that of 25 June 1970 (paragraph 22 above), the
Minister of Education stated that the aim of the new Executive
Order was to enable local school authorities and, consequently,
parents to exert greater influence on the organisation of the
teaching in question. In addition, sex education, which "remains
an integral part of school education, which is to say that it
should form part of the instruction given in obligatory subjects",
was to have a more confined objective and place greater emphasis
on factual information.
The Circular pointed out that henceforth sex education could
be postponed until the third school year. It also mentioned that,
whilst the Executive Order no longer contained a reference to the
Guide - which was still in force -, this was to emphasise that the
Guide was simply an aid to local school authorities in the drawing
up of curricula.
Finally, the Circular gave details on the role of teachers. If
a teacher thought he would not be able to take care of this
instruction in a satisfactory manner, he should be afforded the
opportunity of attending one of the information courses provided
by the Teachers' Training College. In addition, the Minister
expressly recommended that special consideration be given to the
personal and professional qualifications of teachers when courses
including sex education are distributed amongst them.
According to the applicants, the result of the Executive Order
of 15 June 1972 was to free teachers from the duty of giving
instruction in sex. It was alleged that in fact the Minister of
Education issued it because many teachers vigorously protested
against this duty.
33. On 26 June 1975, the Danish Parliament passed a new State
Schools Act (Act No. 313), which became fully effective on
1 August 1976. However, it has not amended any of the provisions
relevant to the present case; sex education remains an integral
and obligatory part of instruction in the elementary school.
Neither has the Act changed the former rules on the influence of
parents on the management and supervision of State schools.
While the Bill was being examined by Parliament, the Christian
People's Party tabled an amendment according to which parents
would be allowed to ask that their children be exempted from
attending sex education. This amendment was rejected by 103 votes
to 24.
34. Although primary education in private schools must in
principle cover all the topics obligatory at State schools
(paragraph 18 above), sex education is an exception in this
respect. Private schools are free to decide themselves to what
extent they wish to align their teaching in this field with the
rules applicable to State schools. However, they must include in
the biology syllabus a course on the reproduction of man similar
to that obligatory in State schools since 1960 (paragraph 19
above).
35. The applicants maintain that the introduction of
compulsory sex education did not correspond at all with the
general wish of the population. A headmaster in Nyborg allegedly
collected 36,000 protest signatures in a very short space of time.
Similarly, an opinion poll carried out by the Observa Institute
and published on 30 January 1972 by a daily newspaper, the
Jyllands-Posten, is said to have shown that, of a random sample of
1,532 persons aged eighteen or more, 41 per cent were in favour of
an optional system, 15 per cent were against any sex education
whatsoever in primary schools and only 35 per cent approved the
system instituted by the 1970 Act.
According to the authors of two articles, published in 1975 in
the medical journal Ugeskrift for Laeger and produced to the Court
by the Commission, the introduction of sex education has not,
moreover, brought about the results desired by the legislator. On
the contrary indeed, the number of unwanted pregnancies and of
abortions is said to have increased substantially between 1970 and
1974. The Government argue that the statistics from 1970 to 1974
cannot be taken as reflecting the effects of legislation whose
application in practice began only in August 1973.
Facts relating to the applicants
36. Mr. and Mrs. Kjeldsen have a daughter called Karen. She
was born in December 1962 and attended St. Jacobi municipal school
in Varde. All the municipal schools in this town were still using,
until the 1972/73 school year, the curricula adopted in 1969, that
is, before the 1970 Act entered into force. In Varde the
curriculum changed only with effect from the 1973/74 school year.
37. On 25 April 1971, the applicants asked the Minister of
Education to exempt their daughter from sex education, saying they
wished to give her this instruction themselves.
On 6 May 1971, the Ministry replied to the effect that a new
Executive Order on sex education in State schools was in the
course of preparation.
The applicants complained to the Danish Parliament but without
any result. They then approached the Parliamentary Ombudsman
(Folketingets ombudsmand) who told them on 2 June 1971 that he had
no competence to deal with the matter.
38. The Ministry of Education, in a letter of 14 July 1971,
advised the applicants that Executive Order No. 274 (paragraph 24
above) had been issued and added that, for practical reasons, it
was not possible to exempt children from integrated sex
instruction.
On 5 August 1971, the applicants wrote again to the Ministry
of Education, this time enquiring about sex education in private
schools. The Ministry told them on 20 September that private
schools were not obliged to provide instruction beyond that which,
since 1960, they had been obliged to give within the context of
the biology syllabus.
Some weeks before, that is, on 31 August 1971, the school
commission of Varde had refused a request by the applicants that
their daughter should be given free private education.
39. On 13 October 1971, the Ministry replied to a further
letter, dated 6 September, in which the applicants had requested
new legislation to provide for free education without sex
instruction. The Ministry said that it did not intend to propose
such legislation and it also refused to arrange for the
applicants' daughter to receive separate education. Referring to
the reply given to another person who, in the same field, had
invoked Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-2), the Ministry stated
that Danish legislation on sex education complied with this
provision, particularly in view of the existence of private
schools.
On 15 April 1972, the applicants asked the Ministry of
Education why the curricula of the Varde municipal schools had not
yet been adapted to the new legislation on sex education; the file
in the case does not reveal whether the Ministry replied.
40. Meanwhile, the applicants had withdrawn their daughter
from the St. Jacobi school and during the 1971/72 school year they
educated her at home. In August 1972 they again sent her to the
Varde municipal school (Brorsonskolen).
They maintained before the Commission that the nearest private
school was nineteen kilometres from their home and that their
daughter, who had diabetes, could not be away from home for a long
period of time. The Government did not contest these claims.
41. Mr. and Mrs. Busk Madsen have four children, the eldest of
whom began school in 1972 at a State school in {Abenra}. They
attempted unsuccessfully to have their children exempted from sex
instruction.
42. Mr. and Mrs. Pedersen have five children, of whom three
were of school age in 1972. Two of them, Ester, born in 1957, and
Svend, born in 1965, attended private schools in order to avoid
having to follow sex education courses; the third, Hans Kristian,
born in 1961, was enrolled at the Poul Paghs Gade municipal school
in {Alborg}. The applicants paid 660 Kroner a month for Ester, who
left the latter school in summer 1972 to attend a private boarding
school at Korinth (Fyn), and 75 Kroner for Svend.
The Pedersens had asked the competent authorities - likewise
unsuccessfully - to exempt their children from sex instruction.
They stated in their application that they were considering
sending their third child as well to a private school, if the
Commission could not help them.
43. In March 1972, the applicants complained about the use of
certain books on sex education at the above-mentioned school.
These books had apparently been approved by the school board in
consultation with the teachers at the school.
The Education and Culture Committee of the Northern Jutland
County Council (Nordjyllands {amtsrads} undervisnings - og
kulturudvalg) decided, however, on 16 June 1972 to uphold the
school board's action and this decision was confirmed by the
Minister of Education on 13 March 1973.
PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COMMISSION
44. The present applications were lodged with the Commission
on 4 April 1971 by Mr. and Mrs. Kjeldsen and on 7 October 1972 by
Mr. and Mrs. Busk Madsen and Mr. and Mrs. Pedersen. As the Busk
Madsens and the Pedersens stated that they regarded their
applications as closely linked with that of the Kjeldsens, the
Commission decided on 19 July 1973 to join the three applications
in accordance with the then Rule 39 of its Rules of Procedure.
All the applicants maintained that integrated, and hence
compulsory, sex education, as introduced into State schools by the
1970 Act, was contrary to the beliefs they hold as Christian
parents and constituted a violation of Article 2 of Protocol
No. 1 (P1-2).
The Commission took its decision on 16 December 1972 on the
admissibility of the Kjeldsens' application, and on 29 May
(partial decisions) and 19 July 1973 (final decisions) on the
admissibility of the Busk Madsens' and the Pedersens'
applications. They were accepted insofar as the applicants
challenged the 1970 Act under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-2),
but rejected, for failure to exhaust domestic remedies (Article 27
para. 3) (art. 27-3), insofar as the applicants were complaining
about "the directives issued and other administrative measures
taken by the Danish authorities" regarding the manner in which sex
education should be carried out.
In their written pleadings on the merits, Mr. and Mrs.
Kjeldsen also invoked Articles 8, 9 and 14 (art. 8, art. 9,
art. 14) of the Convention.
45. In its report of 21 March 1975, the Commission expressed
the opinion:
- that there is no violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1
(P1-2) in the existence, per se, of the Danish system of sex
education (seven votes against seven, with the President
exercising his casting vote in accordance with the then Rule 18
para. 3 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure);
- that there has been no violation of Article 8 (art. 8) of
the Convention (unanimously), or of Article 9 (art. 9)
(unanimously);
- that no violation of Article 14 (art. 14) of the Convention
is disclosed by the facts of the case (seven votes against four,
with three abstentions).
The report contains three separate opinions.
FINAL SUBMISSIONS MADE TO THE COURT
46. At the oral hearings on 2 June 1976 the Commission's
delegates invited the Court to
"judge whether the introduction of integrated, and
consequently compulsory, sex education in State primary schools by
the Danish Act of 27 May 1970 constitutes, in respect of the
applicants, a violation of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by
the European Convention on Human Rights, and in particular those
set out in Articles 8, 9 and 14 (art. 8, art. 9, art. 14) of the
Convention and Article 2 of the First Protocol (P1-2)".
For their part the Government, whilst making no formal
submissions, pleaded the absence of any breach of the requirements
of the Convention and of Protocol No. 1 (P1).
AS TO THE LAW
47. The Court must first rule on two preliminary questions.
The first concerns the declaration of withdrawal and the
accessory request for a separate trial of their cause made by
Mr. and Mrs. Kjeldsen (paragraph 11 above).
The declaration in issue, coming from individuals who are not
entitled under the Convention to refer cases to the Court, cannot
entail the effects of a discontinuance of the present proceedings
(De Becker judgment of 27 March 1962, Series A no. 4, p. 23,
para. 4). Paragraph 1 of Rule 47 of the Rules of Court does not
apply in the circumstances since its covers solely discontinuance
by a "Party which has brought the case before the Court", that is
to say by an Applicant Contracting State in proceedings before the
Court (paragraph (h) of Rule 1). Admittedly paragraph 2 provides
that the Court may, subject to paragraph 3, strike out of its list
a case brought before it by the Commission, but the former
paragraph makes such a decision dependent upon the existence of "a
friendly settlement, arrangement or other fact of a kind to
provide a solution of the matter". However, as the principal
delegate of the Commission emphasised at the hearing on the
morning of 1 June 1976, this condition has not been fulfilled in
the Kjeldsens' case. Furthermore, striking the case out of the
Court's list - which, moreover, has not been requested by the
Government - would be devoid of any practical interest in the
circumstances: being limited to application No. 5095/71, it would
still leave pending the applications of Mr. and Mrs. Busk Madsen
and Mr. and Mrs. Pedersen (nos. 5920/72 and 5926/72 respectively),
which raise the same basic problem.
This latter consideration leads the Court likewise to dismiss
the request for a separate trial.
48. In the second place, the Court deems it necessary to
delimit the object of the examination that it is required to
undertake.
In 1972 and 1973 the Commission accepted the applications
insofar as they contested the compatibility of the Act of 27 May
1970, making sex education compulsory in State schools, with
Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-2). The Commission held the
applications inadmissible, for non-exhaustion of domestic
remedies, insofar as they related to "the directives issued and
other administrative measures taken by the Danish authorities"
regarding the manner in which such education should be carried
out. At paragraph 141 of its report of 21 March 1975, prior to
formulating its opinion on the merits of the case, the Commission
indicated that its task was to concern itself with "the Danish
legislation which provides for integrated sex education" and not
with "the manner in which the instruction is given in different
schools". At paragraph 142, the Commission specified that by
legislation it meant Act No. 235 of 27 May 1970, Executive Order
No. 274 of 8 June 1971 and Executive Order No. 313 of 15 June
1972. The summary of facts appearing in the report mentioned
additionally the "Guide" of April 1971 and the Ministerial
Circular of 8 June 1971 on sex education in State schools.
Similarly, the request instituting proceedings of 24 July 1975
spoke of the "Danish legislation" and not of the Act of 27 May
1970 alone. In their memorial of 11 May 1976 and during the
hearings of 1 and 2 June 1976, the delegates of the Commission
quoted long extracts from the "Guide" of April 1971 and from the
Executive Orders of 8 June 1971 and 15 June 1972, although their
final submissions referred solely to the Act of 27 May 1970. The
delegates expressed the opinion that, while the Court has not to
take cognisance of "the specific measures by which sex education
was carried out in the respective schools", that is the steps
taken "by the municipal authorities and by the parents'
associations", it "may ... look into the different measures of a
general nature taken by the ... Government"; they were of the view
that the Court's supervision extends to the Executive Orders of
8 June 1971 and 15 June 1972 "at least insofar as they serve for
the interpretation of the Act" of 27 May 1970. According to the
delegates, the Commission and the Government seem to be in
agreement on "this interpretation ... of the decisions on
admissibility", the drafting of which left room for "certain
ambiguities".
In their memorial of 8 March 1976, the Government inferred
from paragraph 141 of the Commission's report "that an examination
of the case must proceed on the basis that the Act" of 27 May 1970
"is being implemented in pursuance of the precepts laid down in
the Executive Order of 15 June 1972". Among "the material on which
the Court must act", the Government included the Executive Orders
and Circulars of 8 June 1971 and 15 June 1972; as a result, the
Registrar, acting on instructions from the President of the
Chamber, obtained the text of these instruments from the
Commission (Order of 20 March 1976). "To stave off any impact by
wrongful ideas about "the manner in which sex education is carried
out", the Government in addition supplied the registry with an
English translation of the "Guide" of April 1971; their Agent read
out a passage from the preface to the "Guide" during his oral
arguments on 1 June 1976.
Under these conditions, the Court considers that it is called
upon to ascertain whether or not the Act of 27 May 1970 and the
delegated legislation of general application issued thereunder
contravenes the Convention and Protocol No. 1 (P1), but that the
particular measures of implementation decided upon at the level of
each municipality or educational institution fall outside the
scope of its supervision. Section 1 para. 25 of the Act of 27 May
1970 did no more than supplement the list of compulsory
"integrated" subjects by adding, among others, sex education. The
Minister of Education was entrusted with fixing the manner of
implementing the principle thus enacted (paragraph 22 above). The
Executive Orders and Circulars of 8 June 1971 and 15 June 1972,
issued in pursuance of this enabling clause, therefore form a
whole with the Act itself and only by referring to them can the
Court make an appraisal of the Act; if it were otherwise, the
reference of the present case to the Court would, moreover, hardly
have served any useful purpose. It should nevertheless be pointed
out, as is done by the Commission (paragraph 145 in fine of the
report), that the instant case does not extend to the provisions
on the special, optional lessons on sex education (sections 1
para. 2 in fine, 2 para. 1 in fine, 3 para. 2 and 4 para. 2 in
fine of the Executive Order of 8 June 1971, and subsequently
sections 1 para. 3 in fine, 2 in fine, 3 para. 2 and 4 of the
Executive Order of 15 June 1972); it covers solely those
provisions concerned with the sex education integrated in the
teaching of compulsory subjects.
The "Guide" of April 1971, on the other hand, is not a
legislative or regulatory text, but a working document intended to
assist and advise the local school authorities; while the
Executive Order (section 2) and the Circular of 8 June 1971
mentioned it, the same is not true of those of 15 June 1972
(paragraphs 24 - 25 and 31 - 32 above). It nevertheless remains in
use throughout the whole country and was frequently cited by those
appearing before the Court. Consequently, the Court will have
regard to the "Guide" insofar as it contributes to an elucidation
of the spirit of the legislation in dispute.
Act No. 313 of 26 June 1975, which became fully effective on
1 August 1976, does not call for separate examination as it does
not amend any of the provisions relevant to this case
(paragraph 33 above).
I. On the alleged violation of Article 2
of Protocol no. 1 (P1-2)
49. The applicants invoke Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-2)
which provides:
"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 religious and philosophical convictions."
50. In their main submission before the Commission, the
Government maintained that the second sentence of Article 2 (P1-2)
does not apply to State schools (paragraphs 104 - 107 of the
report and the memorial of 29 November 1973), but their arguments
have since evolved slightly. In their memorial of 8 March 1976 and
at the hearings on 1 and 2 June 1976, they conceded that the
existence of private schools perhaps does not necessarily imply in
all cases that there is no breach of the said sentence. The
Government nevertheless emphasised that Denmark does not force
parents to entrust their children to the State schools; it allows
parents to educate their children, or to have them educated, at
home and, above all, to send them to private institutions to which
the State pays very substantial subsidies, thereby assuming a
"function in relation to education and to teaching", within the
meaning of Article 2 (P1-2). Denmark, it was submitted, thereby
discharged the obligations resulting from the second sentence of
this provision.
The Court notes that in Denmark private schools co-exist with
a system of public education. The second sentence of Article 2
(P1-2) is binding upon the Contracting States in the exercise of
each and every function - it speaks of "any functions" - that they
undertake in the sphere of education and teaching, including that
consisting of the organisation and financing of public education.
Furthermore, the second sentence of Article 2 (P1-2) must be
read together with the first which enshrines the right of everyone
to education. It is on to this fundamental right that is grafted
the right of parents to respect for their religious and
philosophical convictions, and the first sentence does not
distinguish, any more than the second, between State and private
teaching.
The "travaux {preparatoires}", which are without doubt of
particular consequence in the case of a clause that gave rise to
such lengthy and impassioned discussions, confirm the
interpretation appearing from a first reading of Article 2 (P1-2).
Whilst they indisputably demonstrate, as the Government recalled,
the importance attached by many members of the Consultative
Assembly and a number of governments to freedom of teaching, that
is to say, freedom to establish private schools, the "travaux
{preparatoires}" do not for all that reveal the intention to go no
further than a guarantee of that freedom. Unlike some earlier
versions, the text finally adopted does not expressly enounce that
freedom; and numerous interventions and proposals, cited by the
delegates of the Commission, show that sight was not lost of the
need to ensure, in State teaching, respect for parents' religious
and philosophical convictions.
The second sentence of Article 2 (P1-2) aims in short at
safeguarding the possibility of pluralism in education which
possibility is essential for the preservation of the "democratic
society" as conceived by the Convention. In view of the power of
the modern State, it is above all through State teaching that this
aim must be realised.
The Court thus concludes, as the Commission did unanimously,
that the Danish State schools do not fall outside the province of
Protocol No. 1 (P1). In its investigation as to whether Article 2
(P1-2) has been violated, the Court cannot forget, however, that
the functions assumed by Denmark in relation to education and to
teaching include the grant of substantial assistance to private
schools. Although recourse to these schools involves parents in
sacrifices which were justifiably mentioned by the applicants, the
alternative solution it provides constitutes a factor that should
not be disregarded in this case. The delegate speaking on behalf
of the majority of the Commission recognised that it had not taken
sufficient heed of this factor in paragraphs 152 and 153 of the
report.
51. The Government pleaded in the alternative that the second
sentence of Article 2 (P1-2), assuming that it governed even the
State schools where attendance is not obligatory, implies solely
the right for parents to have their children exempted from classes
offering "religious instruction of a denominational character".
The Court does not share this view. Article 2 (P1-2), which
applies to each of the State's functions in relation to education
and to teaching, does not permit a distinction to be drawn between
religious instruction and other subjects. It enjoins the State to
respect parents' convictions, be they religious or philosophical,
throughout the entire State education programme.
52. As is shown by its very structure, Article 2 (P1-2)
constitutes a whole that is dominated by its first sentence. By
binding themselves not to "deny the right to education", the
Contracting States guarantee to anyone within their jurisdiction
"a right of access to educational institutions existing at a given
time" and "the possibility of drawing", by "official recognition
of the studies which he has completed", "profit from the education
received" (judgment of 23 July 1968 on the merits of the "Belgian
Linguistic" case, Series A no. 6, pp. 30 - 32, paras. 3 - 5).
The right set out in the second sentence of Article 2 (P1-2)
is an adjunct of this fundamental right to education (paragraph 50
above). It is in the discharge of a natural duty towards their
children - parents being primarily responsible for the "education
and teaching" of their children - that parents may require the
State to respect their religious and philosophical convictions.
Their right thus corresponds to a responsibility closely linked to
the enjoyment and the exercise of the right to education.
On the other hand, "the provisions of the Convention and
Protocol must be read as a whole" (above-mentioned judgment of
23 July 1968, ibid., p. 30, para. 1). Accordingly, the two
sentences of Article 2 (P1-2) must be read not only in the light
of each other but also, in particular, of Articles 8, 9 and 10
(art. 8, art. 9, art. 10) of the Convention which proclaim the
right of everyone, including parents and children, "to respect for
his private and family life", to "freedom of thought, conscience
and religion", and to "freedom ... to receive and impart
information and ideas".
53. It follows in the first place from the preceding paragraph
that the setting and planning of the curriculum fall in principle
within the competence of the Contracting States. This mainly
involves questions of expediency on which it is not for the Court
to rule and whose solution may legitimately vary according to the
country and the era. In particular, the second sentence of
Article 2 of the Protocol (P1-2) does not prevent States from
imparting through teaching or education information or knowledge
of a directly or indirectly religious or philosophical kind. It
does not even permit parents to object to the integration of such
teaching or education in the school curriculum, for otherwise all
institutionalised teaching would run the risk of proving
impracticable. In fact, it seems very difficult for many subjects
taught at school not to have, to a greater or lesser extent, some
philosophical complexion or implications. The same is true of
religious affinities if one remembers the existence of religions
forming a very broad dogmatic and moral entity which has or may
have answers to every question of a philosophical, cosmological or
moral nature.
The second sentence of Article 2 (P1-2) implies on the other
hand that the State, in fulfilling the functions assumed by it in
regard to education and teaching, must take care that information
or knowledge included in the curriculum is conveyed in an
objective, critical and pluralistic manner. The State is forbidden
to pursue an aim of indoctrination that might be considered as not
respecting parents' religious and philosophical convictions. That
is the limit that must not be exceeded.
Such an interpretation is consistent at one and the same time
with the first sentence of Article 2 of the Protocol (P1-2), with
Articles 8 to 10 (art. 8, art. 9, art. 10) of the Convention and
with the general spirit of the Convention itself, an instrument
designed to maintain and promote the ideals and values of a
democratic society.
54. In order to examine the disputed legislation under Article
2 of the Protocol (P1-2), interpreted as above, one must, while
avoiding any evaluation of the legislation's expediency, have
regard to the material situation that it sought and still seeks to
meet.
The Danish legislator, who did not neglect to obtain
beforehand the advice of qualified experts, clearly took as his
starting point the known fact that in Denmark children nowadays
discover without difficulty and from several quarters the
information that interests them on sexual life. The instruction on
the subject given in State schools is aimed less at instilling
knowledge they do not have or cannot acquire by other means than
at giving them such knowledge more correctly, precisely,
objectively and scientifically. The instruction, as provided for
and organised by the contested legislation, is principally
intended to give pupils better information; this emerges from,
inter alia, the preface to the "Guide" of April 1971.
Even when circumscribed in this way, such instruction clearly
cannot exclude on the part of teachers certain assessments capable
of encroaching on the religious or philosophical sphere; for what
are involved are matters where appraisals of fact easily lead on
to value-judgments. The minority of the Commission rightly
emphasised this. The Executive Orders and Circulars of 8 June 1971
and 15 June 1972, the "Guide" of April 1971 and the other material
before the Court (paragraphs 20 - 32 above) plainly show that the
Danish State, by providing children in good time with explanations
it considers useful, is attempting to warn them against phenomena
it views as disturbing, for example, the excessive frequency of
births out of wedlock, induced abortions and venereal diseases.
The public authorities wish to enable pupils, when the time comes,
"to take care of themselves and show consideration for others in
that respect", "not ... [to] land themselves or others in
difficulties solely on account of lack of knowledge" (section 1 of
the Executive Order of 15 June 1972).
These considerations are indeed of a moral order, but they are
very general in character and do not entail overstepping the
bounds of what a democratic State may regard as the public
interest. Examination of the legislation in dispute establishes in
fact that it in no way amounts to an attempt at indoctrination
aimed at advocating a specific kind of sexual behaviour. It does
not make a point of exalting sex or inciting pupils to indulge
precociously in practices that are dangerous for their stability,
health or future or that many parents consider reprehensible.
Further, it does not affect the right of parents to enlighten and
advise their children, to exercise with regard to their children
natural parental functions as educators, or to guide their
children on a path in line with the parents' own religious or
philosophical convictions.
Certainly, abuses can occur as to the manner in which the
provisions in force are applied by a given school or teacher and
the competent authorities have a duty to take the utmost care to
see to it that parents' religious and philosophical convictions
are not disregarded at this level by carelessness, lack of
judgment or misplaced proselytism. However, it follows from the
Commission's decisions on the admissibility of the applications
that the Court is not at present seised of a problem of this kind
(paragraph 48 above).
The Court consequently reaches the conclusion that the
disputed legislation in itself in no way offends the applicants'
religious and philosophical convictions to the extent forbidden by
the second sentence of Article 2 of the Protocol (P1-2),
interpreted in the light of its first sentence and of the whole of
the Convention.
Besides, the Danish State preserves an important expedient for
parents who, in the name of their creed or opinions, wish to
dissociate their children from integrated sex education; it allows
parents either to entrust their children to private schools, which
are bound by less strict obligations and moreover heavily
subsidised by the State (paragraphs 15, 18 and 34 above), or to
educate them or have them educated at home, subject to suffering
the undeniable sacrifices and inconveniences caused by recourse to
one of those alternative solutions.
55. The applicants also rely on the first sentence of
Article 2 (P1-2). In this connection, it suffices to note that the
respondent State has not denied and does not deny their children
either access to educational institutions existing in Denmark or
the right of drawing, by official recognition of their studies,
profit from the education received by them (judgment of 23 July
1968 on the merits of the "Belgian Linguistic" case, Series A
no. 6, pp. 30 - 32, paras. 3 - 5).
II. On the alleged violation of Article 14
of the Convention taken together with Article 2
of Protocol no. 1 (Art. 14 + P1-2)
56. The applicants also claim to be victims, in the enjoyment
of the rights protected by Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-2), of
a discrimination, on the ground of religion, contrary to Article
14 (art. 14) of the Convention. They stress that Danish
legislation allows parents to have their children exempted from
religious instruction classes held in State schools, whilst it
offers no similar possibility for integrated sex education
(paragraphs 70, 80 and 171 - 172 of the Commission's report).
The Court first points out that Article 14 (art. 14)
prohibits, within the ambit of the rights and freedoms guaranteed,
discriminatory treatment having as its basis or reason a personal
characteristic ("status") by which persons or groups of persons
are distinguishable from each other. However, there is nothing in
the contested legislation which can suggest that it envisaged such
treatment.
Above all, the Court, like the Commission (paragraph 173 of
the report), finds that there is a difference in kind between
religious instruction and the sex education concerned in this
case. The former of necessity disseminates tenets and not mere
knowledge; the Court has already concluded that the same does not
apply to the latter (paragraph 54 above). Accordingly, the
distinction objected to by the applicants is founded on dissimilar
factual circumstances and is consistent with the requirements of
Article 14 (art. 14).
III. On the alleged violation of Articles 8 and 9
(art. 8, art. 9) of the Convention
57. The applicants, without providing many details, finally
invoke Articles 8 and 9 (art. 8, art. 9) of the Convention taken
together with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (art. 8 + P1-2,
art. 9 + P1-2). They allege that the legislation of which they
complain interferes with their right to respect for their private
and family life and with their right to freedom of thought,
conscience and religion (paragraphs 54, 55, 72, 89 and 170 of the
Commission's report).
However, the Court does not find any breach of Articles 8 and
9 (art. 8, art. 9) which, moreover, it took into account when
interpreting Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-2) (paragraphs 52 and
53 above).
IV. On the application of Article 50 (art. 50)
of the Convention
58. Having found no breach of Protocol No. 1 (P1) or of the
Convention, the Court notes that the question of the application
of Article 50 (art. 50) does not arise in the present case.
FOR THESE REASONS, THE COURT
1. Holds by six votes to one that there has been no breach of
Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-2) or of Article 14 of the
Convention taken together with the said Article 2
(art. 14 + P1-2);
2. Holds unanimously that there has been no breach of
Articles 8 and 9 of the Convention taken together with Article 2
of Protocol No. 1 (art. 8 + P1-2, art. 9 + P1-2).
Done in French and English, the French text being authentic,
at the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, this seventh day of
December, one thousand nine hundred and seventy-six.
Signed: Giorgio BALLADORE PALLIERI
President
Signed: {Marc-Andre} EISSEN
Registrar
Judge Verdross has annexed his separate opinion to the present
judgment, in accordance with Article 51 para. 2 (art. 51-2) of the
Convention and Rule 50 para. 2 of the Rules of Court.
Initialled: G. B. P.
Initialled: M.-A. E.
SEPARATE OPINION OF JUDGE VERDROSS
(Translation)
I have approved paragraphs 1 to 52, 55 and 57 of the judgment
but, to my great regret, I have not been able to vote for item 1
of the operative provisions or to accept the grounds given
therefor (paragraphs 53 - 54 and 56). My reasons are as follows:
I am in agreement with the Danish Government's starting point,
which is upheld in the judgment, namely that no provision in the
Convention prevents the Contracting States from integrating in
their school systems instruction on sexual matters and from
thereby making such instruction in principle compulsory. The
second sentence of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-2) thus does
not prevent the States from disseminating in State schools, by
means of the teaching given, objective information of a religious
or philosophical character. However, this freedom enjoyed by the
States is limited by the second sentence of Article 2 of
Protocol No. 1 (P1-2) according to which parents may require that
their religious and philosophical convictions be respected in this
teaching.
Since the applicants in the present case consider themselves
wronged in relation to their "Christian convictions", we can leave
aside the question of how the term "philosophical convictions" is
to be understood. It is sufficient for us to examine whether the
Government complained against has respected the parents' Christian
convictions in the context of sex education.
Admittedly, the applicants' assertions in this respect are not
altogether precise. Their complaints are nevertheless sufficiently
clear to show what is in issue. The applicants are in fact
objecting to the State prematurely giving "detailed" teaching on
sexual matters; they contend that the State's monopoly in the
realm of education deprives them of their basic right "to ensure
their children's education in conformity with their own religious
convictions". This makes it quite plain that they are basing their
complaints on a well established Christian doctrine whereby
anything affecting the development of children's consciences, that
is their moral guidance, is the responsibility of parents and,
consequently, in this sphere the State may not intervene between
parents and their children against the former's wishes.
The applicants admittedly subscribe to the same religion as
the great majority of the country, but they belong apparently to a
group more faithful to the Christian tradition than their
compatriots who are liberal or indifferent to religion. However,
as all the rights protected by the Convention and its Protocols
are rights of individual human beings, the Court is not called
upon to ascertain whether the rights of persons belonging to any
given sect are violated or not. The Court has the sole obligation
of deciding whether in the instant case the rights of the
applicants have been respected or not.
The question thus arises whether the parents concerned in the
current proceedings may, in pursuance of Article 2 (P1-2) cited
above, oppose compulsory sex education in a State school even if,
as in the present circumstances, such education does not
constitute an attempt at indoctrination.
To be able to answer this question, it seems to me necessary
to distinguish between, on the one hand, factual information on
human sexuality that comes within the scope of the natural
sciences, above all biology, and, on the other hand, information
concerning sexual practices, including contraception. This
distinction is required, in my view, by the fact that the former
is neutral from the standpoint of morality whereas the latter,
even if it is communicated to minors in an objective fashion,
always affects the development of their consciences. It follows
that even objective information on sexual activity when given too
early at school can violate the Christian convictions of parents.
The latter accordingly have the right to object.
Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention, which embodies the
freedom of everyone to receive and impart information, cannot be
relied upon so as to counter this opinion, since Article 2 of
Protocol No. 1 (P1-2) constitutes a special rule derogating from
the general principle in Article 10 (art. 10) of the Convention.
Article 2 (P1-2) of the said Protocol thus gives parents the right
to restrict the freedom to impart to their children not yet of age
information affecting the development of the latter's consciences.
According to the judgment, it is true, the aforementioned
clause of Article 2 (P1-2) prohibits solely education given with
the object of indoctrination. However, this clause does not
contain any indication justifying a restrictive interpretation of
such a kind. On the contrary indeed, it requires the States, in an
unqualified manner, to respect parents' religious and
philosophical convictions; it makes no distinction at all between
the different purposes for which the education is provided. Since
the applicants consider themselves wronged in relation to their
"Christian convictions" as a result of the obligation on their
children to take part in "detailed" teaching on sexual matters,
the Court ought to have restricted itself to ascertaining whether,
should there have been any doubt, this complaint tallied or not
with the beliefs professed by the applicants.
In this respect, the Court's power seems to me to be similar
to that possessed by the bodies responsible, in various countries,
for verifying the truth of statements made by persons called up
for military service who claim that their religion or philosophy
prevents them from carrying arms (conscientious objectors). These
bodies have to respect the ideology of the persons concerned once
such ideology has been clearly made out.
The distinction between information on the knowledge of man's
sexuality in general and that concerning sexual practices is
recognised under the Danish legislation itself. While private
schools are required under the legislation to include in their
curricula a biology course on the reproduction of man, they are
left the choice whether or not to comply with the other rules
compulsory for State schools in sexual matters. The legislature
itself is thereby conceding that information on sexual activity
may be separated from other information on the subject and that,
consequently, an exemption granted to children in respect of a
specific course of the first category does not prevent the
integration in the school system of scientific knowledge on the
subject.
The Danish Act on State schools does not in any way exempt the
children of parents having religious convictions at variance with
those of the legislature from attending the whole range of classes
on sex education. The conclusion must therefore be that the Danish
Act, within the limits indicated above, is not in harmony with the
second sentence of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-2).
This conclusion is not weakened by the entitlement given to
parents to send their children to a private school subsidised by
the State or to have them taught at home. On the one hand in fact,
the parents' right is a strictly individual right, whereas the
opening of a private school always presupposes the existence of a
certain group of persons sharing certain convictions in common.
Since the State should respect parents' religious convictions even
if there existed one couple alone whose convictions as to the
development of their children's consciences differ from those of
the majority of the country or of a particular school, it can
discharge this particular duty only by exempting the children from
the classes on sexual practices. Moreover, one cannot fail to
recognise that education at a private school, even one subsidised
by the State, and teaching at home always entail material
sacrifices for the parents. Thus, if the applicants were not
entitled to have their children exempted from the classes in
question, there would exist an unjustified discrimination,
contrary to Article 14 (art. 14) of the Convention, prejudicing
them in comparison with parents whose religious and moral
convictions correspond to those of the Danish legislature.
|
