On 18 July 2024, the European Court of Human Rights delivered a judgment in the case of Djeri and Others v. Latvia, holding unanimously that there had been no violation of the rights of the applicants – parents and their children – under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education) to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) taken together with Article 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the Convention.
The Court also declared the applicants’ complaint under Article 8 of the Convention (right to respect for private and family life) taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention inadmissible for examination on merits.
In their complaints, the applicants argued that the education reform implemented in 2018, which envisaged an increase in the proportion of the curriculum that had to be taught in Latvian at the stage of pre-school education, affected their right as families belonging to a national minority to receive education in a minority language. The applicants alleged that the reform of 2018 restricted the child applicants’ right to access to education and discriminated against them on the grounds of language.
First, the Court examined the applicants’ complaints about an alleged violation of Article 8 of the Convention and agreed with the Government that the applicants’ complaints under this Article were inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies. Namely, three of the applicants had not brought before the Constitutional Court the issue of compatibility of the impugned provisions with the right to respect for their private and family life.
The other six of the applicants had failed to provide proper legal reasoning in their applications to the Constitutional Court as concerns the incompatibility of the contested provisions with the Constitution. For similar reasons, the Court rejected the applicants’ complaints on alleged violation of their rights under Article 8 of the Convention in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention.
Addressing the applicants’ complaints about an alleged violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, the Court held that the applicants' complaints did not fall within the scope of the subject matter of that right. The Court made extensive reference in this respect to its earlier conclusions drawn in Valiullina and Others v. Latvia and Džibuti and Others v. Latvia, according to which the said provision of the Convention does not guarantee individuals the right to instruction in a language of their choice.
Namely, given that Latvian is the only national language in Latvia, the Court noted that applicants cannot complain, on the grounds of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention, about the reduction of the proportion of Russian as a language of instruction in educational institutions in Latvia. Furthermore, in the present case, the applicants had also failed to show that the 2018 amendments would have had any adverse consequences for their possibility to obtain an education.
The Court drew attention to the conclusions made by the Constitutional Court in Case No. 2018-12-01 (language of instruction in public schools) and Case No. 2018-22-01 (language of instruction in private schools) as well as Case No. 2019-20-03, in which the Constitutional Court recognised that the provisions that determine the language of instruction in pre-school institutions comply with the Satversme (Constitution). Namely, in Case No. 2019-20-03, the Constitutional Court held that the right to education enshrined in Article 112 of the Satversme, also comprised the pre-school education as part of the general education system in Latvia.
At the same time, the Constitutional Court recognised that since the right to education in the language of one’s choice was not included in the first sentence of Article 112 of the Satversme, the Constitutional Court would examine the applicants’ arguments from the perspective of the State’s positive obligation in relation to providing quality education. In view of the Constitutional Court’s standpoint, the Court concluded that as regards minorities’ right to education, the Latvian Constitution affords a higher level of protection than the Convention, and rejected the applicants’ complaints in this part.
Finally, the Court examined the applicants’ complaints about an alleged violation of their rights under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention taken in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention. In its submissions, the Government raised several arguments as to why the applicants’ complaints were inadmissible.
Namely, the Government argued that the applicants’ complaints did not fall within the scope of the subject matter of those provisions, that the applicants had not exhausted domestic remedies, and that some of the applicants cannot be considered ‘victims’ in pursuance of Article 34 of the Convention. However, the Court noted that the Government’s arguments that coincide with those submitted in the cases of Valiullina and Others v. Latvia and Džibuti and Others v. Latvia have already been examined by the Court in those cases, and therefore, they were dismissed.
As regards the Government's arguments relating specifically to complaints about the impact of the said reform stage on pre-schools, the Court concluded that the Latvian education system covers two pre-primary education stages with different characteristics and objectives. Having examined the essence of each stage and drawn compared them, the Court pointed out that the applicants’ complaints concerning the first stage of pre-school education in Latvia, that is, for children aged one and a half to five, which is non-compulsory in the Latvian education system, were inadmissible as they did not fall “within the ambit” of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention. In addition, with respect to that stage, the applicants had failed to exhaust domestic remedies. In relation to the applicant born in 2020, the Court concluded that she had not yet been affected by the 2018 amendments as she had not yet started attending the second stage of pre-school and could not claim to be a victim under Article 34 of the Convention. The Court declared the applicants’ complaints as regards the second stage of pre-school education admissible.
As the Court examined the merits of the said applicants’ complaints to assess whether any discrimination on the ground of language was present in this concrete situation, the Court concluded, first of all, that pupils of a pre-school education institution whose native language is Russian and pupils whose native language is Latvian are in a comparable situation and therefore there was differential treatment between them.
Therefore, the Court assessed whether this differential treatment had a legitimate aim. Like in the cases Valiullina and Others v. Latvia and Džibuti and Others v. Latvia, the Court found that in the present case, the differential treatment pursued two legitimate aims: protecting the national language and promoting its use; and the need to ensure equal access for all pupils to a unified education system and to eliminate the segregation in the education system that had existed under the Soviet occupation. In addition, the Court acknowledged that there was also a third legitimate aim – preparing children of pre-school age for primary education.
The Court proceeded to provide an assessment of the proportionality of the education reform implemented in 2018 with the legitimate aims pursued. In its assessment, the Court noted, as in previous cases on the education reform phase of 2018, that the State is entitled to take measures to correct the factual inequalities in the use of the Latvian language in education caused by historical circumstances, while ensuring the right of minorities to preserve and develop their language, culture and identity. Furthermore, the Court noted that the 2018 amendments did not amount to sudden and unexpected changes and did not remove the use of Russian as the language of instruction in its entirety. The Court emphasised the importance of early learning in the mother tongue for children’s overall development, which implied the States being afforded a narrower margin of appreciation in this matter. However, pre-school education was not compulsory in most countries, which allowed for a somewhat wider margin of appreciation in this field. The Court concluded that the State had not overstepped its margin of appreciation, and the difference in treatment was consistent with the legitimate aims pursued, and proportionate.
As the Court proceeded to examine complaints by two applicants as regards alleged discrimination of special needs children whose native language was a minority language, the Court did not exclude the possibility that there may be some specific circumstances where the State would be required to ensure that pupils with special needs receive pre-school education in their mother tongue. However, the Court recognised that the Latvian education system provided inclusive education for children with special needs, both in special pre-school education programmes and in general education programmes, ensuring an individualised approach. In addition, in both programmes, children were able to continue learning their native language. Having noted that the applicants have failed to substantiate their allegations, the Court concluded that there had been no discrimination in this aspect either.
In accordance with Article 43(1) of the Convention, within a period of three months from the date of the judgment, any party to the case may request the Court that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber. The full text of the Court’s judgment of 18 July 2024 in English is available in the online database of the Court. To find the ruling, enter the application number (50942/20 or 2022/21) and the date of the judgment (18/07/2024) in the ADVANCED SEARCH section of the Court’s database.
Facts of the case of Djeri and Others v. Latvia
The applicants are two Latvian citizens and two “permanently resident non-citizen” (parents), and their five children, who, at the time the application was lodged with the Court, were attending pre-schools for minorities (one of the children received an education in accordance with the special minority pre-school education programme for children with special needs).
In order to ensure the integration of every pupil into society and access to the labour market, to exercise their rights in democratic processes and to obtain 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 June 2020, it delivered its judgment in case No. 2018-20-03 regarding the language of instruction in pre-school institutions. The Court declared paragraph 9 of Annex 2 and paragraph 9 of Annex 4 of Regulation No. 716 (2018) entitled “Regulation on the National Guidelines on Pre-school Education and Model Programmes of Pre-school Education” to be compatible with the first sentence of Article 112 and with Articles 114, 91, and 64 of the Constitution.
On 4 November 2020 and 18 December, the applicants lodged complaints with the Court concerning an alleged violation of Article 8 taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention, and of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention.