The European Court of Human Rights (the Court) has delivered its judgment in the case of Valiullina and Others v. Latvia, finding unanimously that there had been no violation of the applicants’ – parents and their children (the applicants) – rights enshrined in Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education) to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the Convention) taken in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention. The Court also found the applicants’ complaints concerning an alleged violation of Article 8 of the Convention (the right to private life) and Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention to be inadmissible for examination on merits.
In their applications of 21 October 2019, 19 January 2020, and 9 February 2020, the applicants alleged that the 2018 education reform, which provided for an increase in the proportion of Latvian as the language of instruction, had affected the rights of their children as members of ethnic minority families to receive education in a minority language which is Russian. The applicants argued that the 2018 reform restricted the child applicant’s right to access education and amounted to discrimination on the grounds of language. The complaints in these cases concerned the education reform implemented at primary education level in public schools.
The Court first addressed the applicants’ complaints regarding the alleged violation of Article 8 of the Convention. It upheld the Government submission that those complaints were inadmissible for examination on the merits, as none of the applicants had called upon the Constitutional Court to address the compatibility of the impugned legal provisions with the right to private life. Although the Constitutional Court had already examined the impugned legal provisions in case No. 2018-12-01 in proceedings instituted by members of Parliament (the Saeima), the Court did not address the compatibility of those legal provisions with Article 96 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to private life.
The Court proceeded with examining the applicants’ complaints of the alleged violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. The Court upheld the Government’s submission that these complaints were incompatible ratione materiae, as that article does not guarantee individuals the right to choose the language of instruction, and the State is therefore under no obligation to ensure the pupils the possibility of choosing a language of instruction other than the national language. In its assessment, the Court addressed the issue of whether there had been any further developments as to the scope of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention since the Court delivered its judgment in the “Belgian linguistic case” in 1968. In so far as the applicants had referred to the conclusions drawn in Catan and Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia and Cyprus v. Turkey, the Court clarified that the crux of those cases had not been the applicants’ right to access education in a language of their choice, but the right to education in the national language or, in other words, official language of the country concerned. Therefore, the Court’s conclusions in those cases cannot be taken to imply that Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention provides for the right to access education in a language of one’s choice. The Court also addressed the findings in Ádám and Others v. Romania, also referred to by the applicants. It noted that the applicants’ reference to Ádám and Others was misguided, as that case concerned an alleged violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12, which Latvia has not ratified. Furthermore, in that particular case the Court had emphasised that the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (the Framework Convention) recognised that the protection and encouragement of minority languages should not be to the detriment of official languages and the need to learn them. As for the applicants’ argument that the entry into force of the Framework Convention had expanded the scope of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the Court clarified that the Framework Convention leaves the States a wide margin of appreciation in implementing specific measures according to the specific parameters of local situations, including the proficiency in the official language of the State and proficiency in minority languages. Against that background, and taking into account the Constitutional Court’s analysis regarding the interpretation of the legal provisions of the Framework Convention, the Court found no grounds to conclude that there had been any further developments as to the scope of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. Indeed, the Court found that the right to education under the Convention does not guarantee the individuals the right to education in a language other than the official language of the State.
Finally, the Court addressed the applicants’ complaints of an alleged violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention. In its observations, the Government raised several arguments as to why the applicants’ complaints should be inadmissible for examination on merits. It argued that those complaints were incompatible ratione materiae, the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies, and that some of them could not claim themselves to be a “victim” within the meaning of Article 34 of the Convention. However, the Court dismissed those arguments and found that the applicants’ complaints were admissible for examination on the merits.
As for the substance of those applicants’ complaints, the Court was called upon to examine whether discrimination on the grounds of language had occurred in the present case. Firstly, the Court held that pupils who, prior to the 2018 amendments, pursued their education in Russian compared to pupils who continued to pursue their education in Latvian were in a comparable situation and there was differential treatment between them. Secondly, the Court assessed whether that differential treatment pursued a legitimate aim. Broadly referring to the Constitutional Court’s judgments, which had thoroughly analysed several stages of the education reform, and considering Latvia’s specific historical context resulting from the long-term Latvia’s occupation by the USSR and the policy of Russification pursued by the Soviet authorities, the Court found that in the present case, this differential treatment pursued a legitimate aim of protecting the national language and promoting the use of Latvian as the official language of the State. As the second legitimate aim, the Court emphasized the need to ensure access to a unified education system for all pupils.
The Court proceeded with assessing whether the 2018 education reform was proportionate to the legitimate aims. It noted that the impugned legislative amendments were adopted twenty-eight years following the restoration of Latvia’s independence and that it cannot be said that they were sudden and unexpected. As early as 1991, the Education Law provided for the right to education in Latvia in the national language, thus ensuring the right for every pupil to pursue education in Latvian. Furthermore, as for the 2018 amendments, the Court noted that the relevant legislative amendments were widely debated while drafting that law. Consequently, the Court agrees with the Government that this stage of the education reform envisaged a gradual and flexible introduction of teaching in the national language. In addition, that stage of the 2018 education reform provided extensive opportunities to acquire a minority language and use it as the language of instruction in specific proportions. The Court also referred to the conclusions drawn by the Constitutional Court regarding the current situation in the context of the use of the national language, as well as the conclusions of the Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) concerning Latvia, which emphasized that Latvia should improve proficiency in the national language among persons belonging to minority groups. Finally, the Court noted that the States enjoy a wide margin of appreciation in shaping their education system and adopting their language protection policies, particularly in relation to public schools, and, against that background, found that Latvia had not overstepped its margin of appreciation in the present case.
In accordance with Article 43 paragraph 1 of the Convention, within a period of three months from the date of the judgment, any party to the case may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber. The full text of the Court’s judgment of 14 September 2023 in English is available on the Court’s website. To find the ruling, enter the application number (56928/19 or 7306/20, or 11937/20) and the date of the judgment (14/09/2023) in the ADVANCED SEARCH section of the Court’s online database.
Facts in the case of Valiullina and Others v. Latvia
The applicants are five Latvian citizens and five Latvian “permanently resident non-citizens” – parents and their children – who, at the time of lodging the application with the Court, pursued their education in public primary schools.
In order to ensure the integration of every pupil into society and access to the labour market, the ability to participate in the State’s democratic processes, and to pursue higher education, Latvia has been gradually implementing an education reform for more than 20 years, aimed at transitioning to a unified education system in the national language. As part of this reform, gradually strengthening a unified education system accessible to all pupils and the use of the national language, amendments to the Education Law and the related Cabinet of Ministers Regulations No. 716, No. 747, and No. 416 (adopted in 2019) were adopted in 2018 to increase the proportion of Latvian as the language of instruction at the level of pre-school, primary, and secondary education.
The said amendments were examined by the Constitutional Court, and on 19 April 2020, it delivered its judgment in case No. 2018-10-03 regarding the language of instruction at pre-school education institutions. The Constitutional Court dismissed the case in the part concerning the compatibility of Section 1(2), Section 3(1) and Section 3(2) of the law “Amendments to the Education Law” of 22 March 2018 and Section 2 of the law “Amendments to the General Education Law” of 22 March 2018 with Article 112 of the Constitution and found Section 1(2), Section 3(1) and Section 3(2) of the law “Amendments to the Education Law” of 22 March 2018 and Section 2 of the law “Amendments to the General Education Law” of 22 March 2018 to be compatible with the second sentence of Article 91 and with Article 114 of the Constitution.
Following the entry into force of the above-mentioned Constitutional Court’s judgment, on 21 October 2019, 19 January 2020, and 9 February 2020, the applicants lodged complaints with the Court concerning an alleged violation of Article 8 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention.