CEDH · CASELAW;REPORTS;ENG — 8 décembre 1987

.sDD6737AE { font-size:11pt } .s211D6B00 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; line-height:normal; widows:0; orphans:0; font-size:8.5pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial }  Application No. 11533/85   INGRID JORDEBO FOUNDATION OF CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS   against   SWEDEN   REPORT OF THE COMMISSION   (adopted on 8 December 1987)   TABLE OF CONTENTS                                                           page   I.       INTRODUCTION (paras. 1-14) ...............         1           A.   The application (paras. 2-4) .............     1           B.   The proceedings (paras. 5-10) ............     1           C.   The present Report (paras. 11-14) ........     2     II.      ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS (paras. 15-34) ....     4           A.   The particular circumstances of the case             (paras. 15-24) ...........................     4           B.   Relevant domestic law (paras. 25-34) .....     6     III.     SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES (paras. 35-72) ....    10           A.   The applicant (paras. 35-53) .............    10           B.   The Government (paras. 54-72) ............    13     IV.      OPINION OF THE COMMISSION (paras. 73-99) .....    17           A.   Point at issue (para. 76) ................    17           B.   Article 6 of the Convention (paras. 77-99)    17               a.   Applicability of Article 6                 para. 1 of the Convention                 (paras. 80-94) .......................    18               b.   Compliance with Article 6                 para. 1 of the Convention                 (paras. 95-100) .......................   20   Dissenting opinion by Mr.   Martinez ....................   22   APPENDIX I       HISTORY OF THE PROCEEDINGS ...........    24   APPENDIX II      DECISION ON THE ADMISSIBILITY ........    25   APPENDIX III     COMMISSION'S PROPOSALS                 (Separate document)   I.       INTRODUCTION   1.       The following is an outline of the case as submitted to the European Commission of Human Rights, and of the procedure before the Commission.           A.   The application   2.       The application was originally brought by the Ingrid Jordebo Foundation of Christian Schools (Ingrid Jordebos Stiftelse för Kristna Skolor) and Mrs.   Ingrid Jordebo, a Swedish citizen born in 1930 and resident at Jönköping.   Mrs.   Jordebo is the headmistress of the Anna School which is run by the foundation.   Mrs.   Jordebo represents the foundation before the Commission.   3.       The Government are represented by their Agent, Mr.   Hans Corell, Ambassador, Under-Secretary at the Ministry for Foreign Affairs, Stockholm.   4.       The case relates to the determination of whether the Anna School (Annaskolan) should be approved for running the seventh to ninth forms of the compulsory school.   The applicant foundation complains that it had no possibility of having the dispute concerning the refusal to grant approval examined by a tribunal satisfying the conditions of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.   Originally the application also related to Mrs.   Jordebo's complaints under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 that her right to ensure for her daughter an education and teaching in conformity with her religious and philosophical convictions had been violated.           B.   The proceedings   5.       The application was introduced on 2 May 1985 and registered on 7 May 1985.   On 4 December 1985 the Commission decided, in accordance with Rule 42 para. 2 sub-para b of its Rules of Procedure, to give notice of the application to the respondent Government and to invite them to present before 21 March 1986 their observations in writing on the admissibility and merits of the application in particular with regard to Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.   The time-limit for the observations was, at the request of the Government, extended until 16 May 1986.           The Government's observations were dated 13 May 1986 and the applicants' observations in reply, after an extension of the time limit to 4 September 1986, were dated 6 August 1986.   6.       Legal aid under the Addendum to the Commission's Rules of Procedure was granted to Mrs.   Jordebo on 18 July 1986.   7.       On 6 March 1987 the Commission decided to declare admissible the applicant foundation's complaint that it did not have access to a tribunal satisfying the conditions of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention for the determination of whether the Anna School should be approved for running the seventh to ninth forms of the compulsory school.   The remainder of the application was declared inadmissible.   8.       The parties were then invited to submit any additional observations on the merits of the application which they wished to make.           The applicant foundation submitted further observations by letter of 1 June 1987 and the Government submitted further observations on 10 June 1987.   These observations were communicated to the other party for information.   Additional observations from the applicant foundation were dated 5 September 1987.   9.       On 11 July 1987 the Commission considered the state of proceedings of the case.   On 8 December 1987 the Commission deliberated on the merits and took the final votes in the case.   10.      After declaring the case admissible the Commission, acting in accordance with Article 28 (b) of the Convention, placed itself at the disposal of the parties with a view to securing a friendly settlement of the case.   In the light of the parties' reactions the Commission now finds that there is no basis on which a friendly settlement can be effected.           C.   The present Report   11.      The present Report has been drawn up by the Commission in pursuance of Article 31 of the Convention and after deliberations and votes in plenary session, the following members being present:                   MM.   C.A. NØRGAARD                      J.A. FROWEIN                      S. TRECHSEL                      G. SPERDUTI                      E. BUSUTTIL                      G. JÖRUNDSSON                      A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK                      A. WEITZEL                      J.C. SOYER                      H.G. SCHERMERS                      H. DANELIUS                      G. BATLINER                 Mrs.   G.H. THUNE                 Sir   Basil HALL                 MM.   F. MARTINEZ                 Mrs.   J. LIDDY           The text of the Report was adopted by the Commission on 8 December 1987 and is now transmitted to the Committee of Ministers in accordance with Article 31 para. 2 of the Convention.   12.      The purpose of the Report, pursuant to Article 31 para. 1 of the Convention, is           (1)   to establish the facts, and           (2)   to state an opinion as to whether the facts found              disclose a breach by the Government of their              obligations under the Convention.   13.      A schedule setting out the history of the proceedings before the Commission is attached hereto as Appendix I and the Commission's decision on the admissibility of the application forms Appendix II.   14.      The full text of the parties' submissions, together with the documents lodged as exhibits, are held in the archives of the Commission.   II.      ESTABLISHMENT OF THE FACTS           A.   Particular circumstances of the case   15.      The Anna School was started in 1976 by Mrs.   Jordebo who is the headmistress of the school and who runs it through the Ingrid Jordebo Foundation of Christian Schools.   The Anna School is the only non-public school for pupils of compulsory school age (7 - 16 years) at Jönköping. The public school is run by the School Board (skolstyrelsen) of Jönköping.   16.      In the school year 1982/83 the Anna School ran classes 1 to 6 (low and middle stage).   In addition, class 7 was run on a trial basis after the approval of the School Board.   Permission to run the classes had been granted by the School Board on 24 August 1982.           For the school year 1983/84, the foundation applied for permission to run classes 1 to 6 and 7 to 9 (upper stage).   17.      On 21 June 1983 the School Board of Jönköping granted permission for classes 1 to 6 and refused permission for classes 7 to 9.   The decision of the School Board was based on a letter containing a proposal from the Deputy School Director.   The letter, dated 15 June 1983, reads, in the relevant parts, as follows:           "On 24 August 1984 the School Board granted the Anna School         permission to teach classes 1 to 7 during the school year         1982/83.   By this decision the Anna School was for the first         time given the possibility of receiving pupils for the upper         stage, class 7.           During the school year I have visited the Anna School four         to five times and followed the education.   I have also         received information about the exams of the pupils of class 7         insofar as such information was available at the end of the         school year.           Like in previous years the education at the low and middle         stages have been run in a satisfactory way, although         Mrs.   Jordebo has been the only qualified teacher.   The other         teachers have by and large worked during the whole school year.           In class 7 (two pupils) there have been several changes of         teachers during the year.   During the last weeks one qualified         language teacher was in service, whereas the other teachers         lacked qualifications as teachers (high school competence         or lower).   This is not satisfactory having regard to the         quality of the education.   The Anna School has had access         to localities within the Rosenlund area.   The supply of         common educational facilities is otherwise insufficient.           My impressions of the education in class 7 make me very         doubtful as to whether it is appropriate to permit upper         stage education at the Anna School.   These pupils shall         at the end of the autumn term of class 9 be given marks         to be used when being admitted to high school.            ...           With reference to the above it is proposed that the         School Board           grant the foundation ... permission to run the Anna School         with classes 1 to 6 for the school year 1983/84           reject the application for a permit regarding classes 7 to         9 at the Anna School for the school year 1983/84."   18.      The foundation then made a new application for classes 7 to 9, which was rejected by the School Board on 23 August 1983.   It appears from the decision that it was estimated that three pupils would attend the seventh form, and two pupils the eighth form.   None of the proposed teachers had formal competence to teach in the seventh and eighth forms, and only Mrs.   Jordebo had formal competence as a teacher, but only for the middle stage.   19.      The foundation appealed to the National Board of Education (skolöverstyrelsen).   It submitted inter alia that the handling of the matter by the Deputy School Director had not been in accordance with the School Act.   The foundation further submitted that the School Act, notably Section 34, in its new wording after 1 July 1983 did not provide anything about the qualifications of the teachers.   The foundation alleged that if it were not to be subject to an arbitrary assessment an examination had to be made together with the corresponding classes of the public school.   It noted that the public schools in the area had also engaged non-qualified teachers.   20.      On 18 April 1984 the National Board of Education rejected the appeal for the following reasons:           "According to Section 34 of the School Act (skollagen) an         independent school shall be approved for fulfilment of the         obligation of compulsory schooling provided that the teaching         at the school conveys knowledge and skills which as regards         their nature and level essentially correspond to the         knowledge and skills given by the public school, and the         school otherwise corresponds to the general objectives of         the public school.           The approval shall be revoked when the school no longer         satisfies these conditions and the deficiencies cannot be         removed after contact with the principal.           The Anna School does not have State regulated posts and         formal competence of the teachers cannot therefore be         required.   Of course, this does not mean that one could         disregard the requirement of the quality of the education.           Both the School Board and the County Board of Education         (länsskolnämnden) have found that the upper stage         teaching which is given at the Anna School does not convey         knowledge and skills of a nature and level which essentially         correspond to the knowledge and skills given by a public         school.           The National Board of Education rejects the appeal."   21.      The foundation appealed to the Government (the Ministry of Education).   The Government obtained the opinion of the National Board of Education which in turn had heard the School Board and the County Board of Education.   22.      On 13 December 1984 the Government rejected the appeal with the following reasoning:           "The Government do not find it established from the         investigation that the conditions laid down in Section 34         of the School Act, that the teaching at the school shall         convey knowledge and skills of a nature and level which         essentially correspond to the knowledge and skills given         by the public school, were present concerning the classes         at issue."   23.      While the case was pending before the Government, the foundation carried out teaching for classes 7 and 8 of the school year 1983/84.   24.      On 16 April 1985 the School Board of Jönköping decided to approve the Anna School for running the seventh to ninth forms of the compulsory school from the school year 1984/85 and onwards.   The reason for the decision was that the school had employed more competent personnel for the upper stage and that, consequently, the quality of the education had improved.           B.   Relevant domestic law and practice   25.      The Swedish school system was until 1 July 1986 regulated by the 1962 School Act.   The Act was supplemented by the 1971 School Ordinance (skolförordningen) and the 1980 Compulsory School Curriculum (läroplan för grundskolan), issued by the Government on the basis of guidelines laid down by the Parliament.   The 1985 School Act, which succeeded the 1962 School Act, entered into force on 1 July 1986 and consequently is not material to the present case.   In the following reference is made to the School Act in its wording between 1 July 1983 and 30 June 1986.   26.      The basic education, for children of an approximate age of 7 - 16 years, is compulsory according to Section 30 paras. 1 and 2 of the School Act, which reads as follows:           (Swedish)           "För barn, som är bosatt i riket, gäller skolplikt.           Skolplikt inträder med början av höstterminen det kalenderår         då barnet fyller sju år, och upphör, om den ej fullgjorts         dessförinnan, med utgången av vårterminen det kalenderår,         då barnet fyller sexton år."           (English translation)           "A child resident within the country is subject to compulsory         school attendance.           The compulsory school attendance applies from the beginning         of the autumn term of the year, during which the child attains         seven years of age, and terminates, if not already fulfilled,         at the end of the spring term of the year, during which the         child attains sixteen years of age."           This compulsory, basic education is a significant element in the fulfilment of the obligations undertaken by the Swedish State in educating and teaching children and young people.   The goals of this part of the children's education are to give them the basic knowledge and skills in a broad sense which are necessary for their participation in the life of the community and, thus, to prepare them for working life or higher education.   27.      According to Sections 23 and 28 of the Act, every child has a right to receive, free of charge, this basic education at a public school.   The following two excerpts from the introductory part of the Compulsory School Curriculum give a basic idea of the general goals of public sector school education (pages 13 and 15):   "Compulsory school is part of society.   The curriculum reflects a democratic view of society and its members, the implication being that human beings are active and creative and that they both can and must assume responsibility and seek knowledge in order to co-operate with others in understanding and improving their own living conditions and those of other people.   The content and working methods of schools must be designed in such a way as to be conducive to this attitude towards people and society.   It is the duty of schools to give their pupils increased responsibility and powers of co-determination as they grow older and become increasingly mature.   ... Compulsory schools do not provide any instruction focusing on particular occupations.   The fields of knowledge which are to be dealt with must be fundamentally important to everybody, irrespective of their future activities.   This means, for example, that schools must familiarise their pupils with questions of belief, with major issues concerning human relations and survival, with international affairs, with science of technology, with resource conservation, with environmental questions, with economic questions, with questions concerning working life and the labour market, with cultural questions, with family questions, with sexual matters, with immigrant affairs, with law and justice, with questions concerning road traffic, and with the hazards involved in alcohol, drugs and tobacco. All pupils must acquire a knowledge of at least one foreign language.   A prominent place must be given to knowledge with an important bearing on everyday life."   28.      The majority of Swedish children discharge the compulsory part of their education within the public school system.   However, the School Act offers a possibility of attending private schools in place of the public school.   In view of the public interest in giving to each individual certain basic knowledge and skills, and also the special responsibility of the authorities in respect of the quality of any form of compulsory education offered, it has been deemed necessary to subject the running of private schools to certain conditions.   29.      According to Section 33a para. 1 of the Act, the compulsory education may be discharged at a private school provided that the school is formally approved for this purpose.   Section 33a para. 1 of the Act reads as follows:           (Swedish)           "Skolplikten får fullgöras i en fristående skola, om skolan         är godkänd enligt 34 §.   I 34a § finns bestämmelser om att         skolplikten i vissa fall får fullgöras i annan fristående         skola, om den har godkänts för ändamålet."           (English translation)           "Compulsory school attendance may be discharged in a         private school, if the school has been approved         according to Section 34.   Section 34a provides that         in some cases compulsory school attendance may be         discharged in another private school, if it has been         approved for that purpose."   30.      Section 34 of the Act reads as follows:           (Swedish)           "En fristående skola skall godkännas för skolpliktens         fullgörande, om skolans undervisning ger kunskaper och         färdigheter som till art och nivå väsentligen svarar mot         de kunskaper och färdigheter som grundskolan förmedlar         och skolan även i övrigt väsentligen svarar mot grundskolans         allmänna mål.   Om skolan inte längre uppfyller dessa villkor         och bristerna inte kan avhjälpas efter hänvändelse till         huvudmannen, skall godkännandet återkallas."           (English translation)           "A private school shall be approved for the discharge of         the compulsory school attendance if the teaching at the         school gives knowledge and skills of essentially the same         character and level as the knowledge and skills provided         by the public school and if the school also otherwise         essentially corresponds to the general goals of the public         school.   If the private school no longer fulfils these         requirements and if the deficiencies cannot be rectified         after contact with the principal, the approval shall         be revoked."   31.      The legal implication of a decision not to approve a private school is not that the school is prevented from offering teaching on a private basis, but that the teaching offered at the school does not satisfy the conditions for compulsory school education and cannot therefore be a substitute for such education.   32.      The travaux préparatoires show that the solution regarding private schools is the result of a compromise between two possibly conflicting interests.   On the one hand, it was recognised that the principle of the freedom of individuals requires the existence of a possibility to run and to attend private schools (Government Bill 1982/83:1, p. 15).   On the other hand, it was emphasised that one should not give up the requirement of ensuring to each individual the minimum amount of knowledge and skills necessary for his or her participation in the life of the society by allowing the compulsory school attendance to be fulfilled at private schools offering inadequate education (idem).   33.      According to Section 10 of the School Act, a decision to approve a private school or to revoke such an approval is to be taken by the Local School Board.   Its decision may, according to Sections 53 and 54a of the Act, be appealed to the National Board of Education and a further appeal may be lodged with the Government.   34.      Under Sections 50b and 50c of the Act, private schools are subject to supervision by the school authorities in respect of that part of their educational programmes which concerns children subject to compulsory school attendance. III.     SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES           A.   The applicant   35.      The Government have objected that the applicant foundation has not made a complaint of its own under Article 6 of the Convention and that consequently there is no remaining issue to be examined on the merits.   36.      It is submitted that this objection has already been settled by the decision on admissibility.   The Commission has correctly found the complaint to have been made jointly by the two applicants.   No distinction between the applicants was intended.   The fact that Mrs. Jordebo used the pronoun "I" is due to the fact that the applicant foundation cannot be said to have an opinion being a legal entity. The Government have admitted that they made no such distinction themselves.   37.      The applicant foundation submits that the right to run a school is a civil right.   The possibility for the foundation to exercise this right depends on the decision of the Government.   The Anna School's position as regards the families who send their children to the school is a contractual situation of a civil character.   The school has already taught the classes 1-6 and whether the children may stay on for three more years is a question of a commercial situation, although there is an idealistic motive for running the school.   38.      The Anna School has suffered great damage because of the decisions of the authorities.   The fact that the school was held incapable of teaching classes 7-9 for quality reasons has been published in the local newspapers.   The coverage has been detrimental also in financial respects.   Thus, the existence of the school as a complete school was at stake, and there was a question of civil rights and obligations involved.   The Government seem to regard the right to keep a school as entirely being "le fait du Prince".   But this is clearly different from the mainstream in the countries of the High Contracting Parties, which requires an autonomous way of judgment.   39.      Article 6 para. 1 cannot give the applicant foundation any right to keep a school.   Nevertheless, a tribunal would be able to judge in an independent manner whether the school is satisfactory and gives the pupils a tolerably good education, which was the question to be resolved, and which has been resolved in an unfavourable way, by authorities at three levels not satisfying the requirements of Article 6 para. 1.   40.      It would seem that not more than one such inferior authority is allowed (Ettl and others v.   Austria, Comm.   Report 3.7.85), before a tribunal satisfying the requirements of Article 6 para. 1 should be available.   The Government state that the applicant foundation has not been denied the right to run a school.   That is true.   The decision of the Government was not formally to deny the right to run the school. But the decision of the Government meant that the school was not allowed to receive pupils.   This decision had the same effect as a formal decision to stop the school.   If the school is not allowed to receive pupils it means that the school is prevented from functioning. If this is done through a formal decision to stop the school or through a decision that no pupils are allowed to go to the school is of no importance for the interpretation of the concept of "civil right" in Article 6 of the Convention.   41.      The State has the right to have the applicant's school inspected, but the judgment over the school and its quality should be made in an independent way, avoiding all harassment, by inspectors free of bias.   The school has not been treated in such a way.   Moreover the right of the foundation has been violated by decisions of bodies which are bound to be biased through their connections with the State and the municipal school system.   42.      The foundation submits that the mere existence of the decisions of the School Board, the National Board of Education and the Government prove the existence of a "dispute" between the applicant and the authorities.   There is a dispute from two points of view, one from a religious point of view and one from a pedagogical (methodical) point of view.   43.      As regards the dispute based on religion, the applicant recalls that the foundation was founded in order to run schools that conduct young people to a Christian faith.   It is a civil right to embrace a certain religion.   The Government have in their compulsory school curriculum only allowed information about different religions. No religion is allowed to be preferred.   Through this curriculum the Government violate the true Christian faith.   From the Bible you can learn as follows: "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus" (1 Timothy 2:5).   There is thus a dispute between the foundation, which is bound to the Bible, and the Government, which are bound to an "equality between religions".   It should be observed that the pupils of the Anna School learn about other religions and are taught to have respect for other people's opinions.   44.      As regards the dispute of a pedagogical nature, it is recalled that the foundation works for the same goals as are described in Swedish legislation concerning compulsory school education.   The dispute concerns how to attain these goals.   The Anna School teaches very individually, taking into consideration the abilities and the maturity of the pupils.           The compulsory school in Sweden mainly aims at the pupils studying as many pages in the text-books as possible.   The Anna School concentrates on how much the pupils have understood and how they can use their knowledge independently.   This method was explained to the school-inspectors but they ignored the explanation.   The pupils of the Anna School would after nine years' studies have the same and in some cases even better skills and knowledge than the pupils in the municipal schools.   45.      As regards the Government's allegation that there was no "dispute" the applicant foundation contends that cases like the present one in other Contracting States are examined by tribunals.   A High Contracting Party cannot dispense with tribunals for cases it seems "simple to judge".   46.      The Government's reasoning is weakened by the fact that the School Board of Jönköping decided to approve the upper stage education at the Anna School shortly after the Government's refusal to approve it, and without the conditions at the school having changed.   47.      In the case of Van Marle and others (see Eur.   Court H.R., Van Marle and others judgment of 26 June 1986, Series A no. 101, p. 12 para. 36), referred to by the Government, the European Court of Human Rights found that an assessment evaluating knowledge and experience for carrying on a profession under a particular title is so far removed from the exercise of the normal judicial function that the safeguards in Article 6 cannot be taken as covering resultant disagreements.   The judgment confirms the position in all countries that an examination result cannot be reviewed by a tribunal.   48.      In the present case there was no dispute over an examination or a degree, nor about the competence of the teachers or the actual results of the teaching.   The standard aptitude tests (standardprov) used in the compulsory schools in Sweden were also used at the Anna School.   The results of those tests were available to the school-inspector who never asked to see them.   There has been no examination of the Anna School, its pupils or their results that could be resembled to the examination referred to in the Van Marle and others judgment.   49.      The school-inspector has told Mrs.   Jordebo that he does not approve of Christian schools.   It is not likely that this inspector would give an unbiased judgment of the Anna School.   In an ordinary hearing in a tribunal it would have been possible to expose this fact.   50.      The original decision of the School Board of Jönköping was subject to review and was indeed reviewed.   The Government have not given any reason, and no reason can be found, why the review could not be made by a tribunal.   51.      The fact that the School Board of Jönköping can find the Anna School good enough to run the seventh to ninth forms of the compulsory school immediately after the Government have found that it is not, proves that arbitrariness dominated the proceedings and that the rule of law did not prevail.   52.      Finally, Sweden is unique among countries belonging to the Council of Europe as far as the school policy is concerned.   In Sweden it is a basic political idea, which has governed the political leaders for a long time, that the State and the local municipal authorities must control the education: what the children have to learn and in which ways they have to receive the education must in every instance be decided by the political majority of the country.   For this reason private schools, although formally allowed, are in practice stopped by all means.   The children should be kept within the public schools in order to prevent any other influence on the education than such as has been accepted by the political majority.           The Anna School has, in spite of all these difficulties of a financial kind, been successful and created an alternative school in Jönköping.   Other ways have been used in order to stop its development. In this respect it is easy to say that the education offered at the Anna School is not good enough.   53.      The applicant foundation concludes that it has been a victim of a breach of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention.           B.   The Government   54.      The Government first refer to the original application of 2 May 1985.   They question whether the complaints as to Article 6 were submitted by the foundation or by Mrs.   Jordebo herself or both.   In the application, signed by Mrs.   Jordebo, the expression used is: "I consider it as a civil right to run etc" and "I have not in accordance with Article 6 in the Convention been able to get this my right tried at court".           From this point of view it could be argued that the complaints as to Article 6 relate to Mrs.   Jordebo herself and that there exist no remaining complaints by the foundation to be examined.   The Government leave this question to the Commission.   It would seem that Mrs.   Jordebo has not made a clear distinction between herself as a physical person and the foundation as a legal entity, for which she obviously is competent to sign.   It is admitted that a clear distinction does not appear in the Government's decision of 18 April 1984 either.   55.      The Government contend that it comes within the exclusive power of a State to decide whether or not to subject its citizens to compulsory school education.   It is also for the State to determine the substance of such education as well as the manner in which it is to be given.   Even though a State's power in this respect may be subject to various limitations as a result of, for instance, treaty obligations, the exercise of such power could not, in the Government's opinion, be viewed as anything else than the performance of public functions exclusively vested in the State.   It follows that no individual or institution is in a position to claim any right in the sense that the State would be obliged to designate any particular school or category of schools for the purpose of administering compulsory school education.   56.      It goes without saying that the State is free to entrust parts of its functions of administering compulsory school education to private individuals or institutions.   However, in the Government's view this does not alter the public character of the function. Consequently, the State is still at liberty not only to decide whether to entrust public schools with this kind of education, but also unilaterally to lay down the conditions for doing so and to determine whether in a certain case these conditions are met.   57.      In view of this, and since the only implication of the disputed decision of the School Board was that the education in question would not be recognised as satisfying the requirements of compulsory school education, the Government submit that the present case could not involve any "rights" that might be characterised as "civil" within the meaning of Article 6 para. 1 of the Convention. Consequently, the Government maintain that the complaint falls outside the scope of the Convention.   58.      In case the Commission does not share this view, the Government add the following:           It could be argued that a school offering education on a private basis may engage in activities of an essentially private law character and that these activities in turn may give rise to rights which could be characterised as "civil" within the meaning of Article 6.   Furthermore, the possibility of exercising such rights might well, in practice, be affected by a decision not to recognise the school for the purpose of administering compulsory school education.   59.      The question may be asked, therefore, whether the possible existence of such rights is sufficient to bring a case like the present one within the scope of Article 6 para. 1.   The question is justified in view of the position taken by the European Court of Human Rights in some recent cases involving professional and commercial activities primarily aimed at offering products or services to presumptive consumers (see e.g., Eur.   Court H.R., König judgment of 23 April 1977, Series A no. 27, Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere judgment of 23 June 1981, Series A no. 43 and Benthem judgment of 23 October 1985, Series A no. 97).   Despite the outcome of these cases, the Government submit, for the following reasons, that the question has to be answered in the negative in the present case.   60.      It follows from the wording of Article 6 that, for proceedings concerning civil rights to come within the scope of the Article, the object of the proceedings has to be the "determination" of such rights.   In a case like the present one, the only possible rights that could be involved are those alluded to above.   As regards education of children of compulsory school age, however, such rights could only accrue subsequent to a decision to recognise the school for such education.   As regards the education referred to in the complaint, no such recognition was ever granted.   Consequently, and unlike the situation in the previous cases mentioned above, the disputed decision of the School Board in the present case did not concern, nor did it affect, any such rights.   Applying Article 6 para. 1 to the present case would in the Government's opinion be to disregard the natural and ordinary meaning of the text and to read into the Convention something that is not there.   61.      In support of this reasoning, the Government invoke the judgment of the Court in the case of Le Compte, Van Leuven and De Meyere.   Observing that proceedings, in order to come within the scope of Article 6 para. 1, had to be "decisive" for a civil right, the Court construed this to mean that the right had to be "the object - or one of the objects - of" the dispute and that "the result of the proceedings (had to) be directly decisive for such a right" (para. 47).   62.      Furthermore, there are other significant differences that distinguish the present case from those referred to above.   Thus, the activities involved in the latter cases have been of a quite different character than the one now in question.   The reason for the State interest in the activities involved in the previous cases has been, not the significance of the activities as such, but health hazards or similar concerns related to them.   Such concerns apparently have been the reason for the entire supervision in one form or another and the activities as such have preserved their essentially private character. Those entering into contractual or other relationships with the persons or entities carrying on the activities have done so exclusively with a view to the presumptive benefits directly flowing from these relationships.   The proceedings have resulted in a prohibition to carry on the activities concerned and, consequently, also been directly and immediately decisive in respect of the rights involved.   63.      As regards the education now in question, on the other hand, the State interest is focused on the very activity as such.   In view of its importance to society, children have been, without exceptions, placed under an unconditional obligation to attend school.   A child of compulsory school age attending a duly recognised private school, therefore, would not only be engaged in a relation with the school, the nature of which arguably might be characterised as private, but it would also be simultaneously fulfilling an obligation imposed on it by society.   More