CEDH · CASELAW;DECISIONS;DECCOMMISSION;ENG — 5 avril 1995

.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 }                          AS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF                         Application No. 22398/93                       by J. R., G. R., R. R. and Y. R.                       against Switzerland           The European Commission of Human Rights (Second Chamber) sitting in private on 5 April 1995, the following members being present:              Mr.    H. DANELIUS, President            Mrs.   G.H. THUNE            MM.    G. JÖRUNDSSON                  S. TRECHSEL                  J.-C. SOYER                  H.G. SCHERMERS                  F. MARTINEZ                  L. LOUCAIDES                  J.-C. GEUS                  M.A. NOWICKI                  I. CABRAL BARRETO                  J. MUCHA                  D. SVÁBY              Mr.    K. ROGGE, Secretary to the Chamber         Having regard to Article 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms;         Having regard to the application introduced on 22 May 1993 by J. R., G. R., R. R. and Y. R. against Switzerland and registered on 2 August 1993 under file No. 22398/93;         Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 47 of the Rules of Procedure of the Commission;         Having deliberated;         Decides as follows:   THE FACTS         The facts of the case, as submitted by the applicants, may be summarised as follows.         The applicants are a family residing at Schwarsee in Switzerland. The first applicant is a carpenter born in 1942.   The second applicant, his wife, is an educator born in 1944.   The third and fourth applicants are their children, born in 1979 and 1981 respectively.   All applicants are Swiss citizens.   Before the Commission they are represented by Mrs. M. Zurrón-Krummenacher, a student and housewife residing at Schmitten in Switzerland.                                   I.         On 27 September 1990 Parliament (Grosser Rat) of the Canton of Fribourg enacted the School Dental Treatment and Prophylaxis Act (Gesetz über die Schulzahnpflege und -prophylaxe).   The law was upheld in a referendum.   On 4 June 1991 Parliament confirmed the law (Erwahrung).         The Act which aims at contributing to dental hygiene and preventing caries envisages yearly dental controls of schoolchildren. A school dentist service is organised; a dental officer (Vertrauenszahnarzt) supervises the school dentists.   Further provisions of the Act state:   <Translation>         "Section 6         1.    The school dentist shall control the children's teeth and       gums at least once a year.         2.    He shall inform the children and their parents of any       necessary treatment.         3.    Dental control shall be compulsory.         4.    A child shall be exempted from dental control by the school       dentist if it produces a report not older than three months       confirming that it is receiving the necessary dental treatment.         Section 7         1.    The parents must comply with any treatment aimed at       preserving dental health regarded necessary by the school       dentist;   in this respect they may turn to the school dentist or       to a dentist of their own choice.   Orthodontic treatment is       voluntary.         2.    The school dentist shall report to the service any       treatment which has not been carried out.   The service will       decide on the necessary measures."   <German>         "Artikel 6         1.    Der Schulzahnarzt untersucht Gebiss und Zahnfleisch der       Kinder mindestens einmal im Jahr.         2.    Er informiert die Kinder und ihre Eltern über die       notwendigen Zahnbehandlungen.         3.    Die Zahnkontrolle ist obligatorisch.         4.    Legt ein Kind ein Zeugnis vor, das höchstens drei Monate       alt ist und bestätigt, dass das Kind die erforderliche Zahnpflege       erhielt, so ist es von der Zahnkontrolle durch den Schulzahnarzt       befreit.         Artikel 7         1.    Die Eltern müssen die zahnerhaltenden Behandlungen, die der       Schulzahnarzt für notwendig erachtet, ausführen lassen; sie       wenden sich dafür entweder an den Schulzahnarzt oder an einen       Zahnarzt ihrer eigenen Wahl.   Die orthodontischen Behandlungen       sind freiwillig.         2.    Der Schulzahnarzt meldet dem Dienst die nicht ausgeführten       Behandlungen.   Der Dienst beschliesst die notwendigen Massnah-       men."         According to Section 10, indigent parents will receive a financial contribution to the costs of treatment.   Section 11 provides, in case of non-compliance with Sections 6 and 7, for a fine between SFr 20 and 1,000 for those who do not comply with their obligations under the Act.   Section 12 envisages an appeal to the dental officer against decisions taken under Sections 6 and 7.                                       II.         On 5 July 1991 the applicants and others filed a public law appeal (staatsrechtliche Beschwerde) with the Federal Court (Bundesgericht) complaining inter alia under Article 8 of the Convention of Section 6 para. 4 and Sections 7 and 11 of the Act.         On 26 November 1992 the Federal Court dismissed the public law appeal, the decision being served on the applicants on 8 February 1993.         The Court considered inter alia that the measure complained of served the "protection of health" within the meaning of Article 8 para. 2 of the Convention.   There was a particular public interest in the protection of health of children who had limited possibilities of protecting their own rights.   Caries proved to be a widespread problem; dental decay could often not be healed, and infections could arise. Dental problems could also affect digestion and weaken the organism.         The Court then examined the proportionality of the measure.   It proceeded from the consideration that the individual's right to self- determination possessed considerable weight.   The Court noted that the Act only concerned minors of compulsory schooling age, and did not envisage cosmetic changes.   Moreover, the school dentist, when examining the necessity of treatment, would consider, for instance, whether the child concerned risked infections.   The school dentist was obliged to counsel the patients and their parents who had the possibility of appealing against any decision to the dental offices. Moreover, any further obligation would require consultation of the guardianship office (Vormundschaftsbehörde).   Finally, the parents were free to choose their own dentist to carry out the treatment required.         The Court concluded inter alia that the envisaged measures were proportionate and did not contravene the Convention.   COMPLAINTS         The applicants complain under Article 8 of the Convention that the third and fourth applicants will be obliged to submit to dental treatment with which the applicants do not agree.   Reference is made to the right to decide oneself about one's body and to children's problems with their milk-teeth.   The applicants consider that the children will be put under pressure if they know that their parents risk criminal prosecution.   THE LAW   1.     The applicants complain under Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention that the third and fourth applicants will be obliged to submit to dental treatment with which the applicants do not agree.         Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention states, insofar as relevant:         "1.   Everyone has the right to respect for his private ... life       ...         2.    There shall be no interference by a public authority with       the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with       the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests       of national security, public safety or the economic well-being       of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the       protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the       rights and freedoms of others."   2.     Under Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention the Commission may only deal with applications "from any person ... claiming to be the victim of a violation ... of the rights set forth in (the) Convention".         In the present case the applicants have not claimed that they were punished on account of their refusal to submit the third and fourth applicants to dental treatment.   On the other hand, the third and fourth applicants are school children who may eventually be subjected to the treatment complained of; alternatively, their parents i.e. the first and second applicants, risk a fine between SFr 20 and 1,000.         The Commission need nevertheless not resolve the issue whether the applicants can claim to be the victims of the violation complained of within the meaning of Article 25 (Art. 25) of the Convention, since the application is in any event inadmissible for the following reasons.   3.     The Commission recalls its case-law according to which even minor medical treatment, as long as it is compulsory, constitutes an interference with a person's right to respect for private life, though the measure may be considered necessary in a democratic society where it serves the aim of the protection of health within the meaning of Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) of the Convention (see No. 10435/83, Dec. 10.12.84, D.R. 40 p. 251 with further references).         Compulsory dental treatment, as in the present case, therefore amounts to an interference with the applicants' right to respect for their private life within the meaning of Article 8 (Art. 8) of the Convention.         The legal basis for the measure complained of is the School Dental Treatment and Prophylaxis Act of the Canton of Fribourg.   The measure complained of is, therefore, "in accordance with the law" within the meaning of Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) of the Convention.         The Commission further accepts that compulsory school dental treatment serves "the protection of health (and) the protection of the rights ... of others" within the meaning of Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) of the Convention.         Finally, the Commission must examine whether the interference was "necessary in a democratic society" within the meaning of Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) of the Convention.   This notion implies that the interference corresponds to a pressing social need and that it is proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.   In determining whether an interference is "necessary in a democratic society" the Convention organs must also take into account that a margin of appreciation is left to the Contracting States (see Eur. Court H.R., Olsson judgment of 24 March 1988, Series A no. 130, p. 31 et seq., para. 67).         In the present case, the Commission observes that the Federal Court in its decision of 26 November 1992 carefully weighed the competing interests at stake.   While proceeding from the individual's right to self-determination, it saw a particular public interest in the protection of the health of children who had limited possibilities of protecting their own rights.   The school dentist would have to consider, for instance, whether the child concerned risked infections. The parents had the possibility of filing an appeal against any such decision to the dental officer, and the guardianship office would also have to be consulted.   Finally, the parents were free to choose their own dentist to carry out the treatment required.         In the Commission's opinion, it cannot be said that the decision of the Federal Court goes beyond the margin of appreciation left to the national authorities.   The interference with the applicants' right to respect for private life can therefore reasonably be considered "necessary in a democratic society" within the meaning of Article 8 para. 2 (Art. 8-2) of the Convention.         It follows that the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 para. 2 (Art. 27-2) of the Convention.         For these reasons, the Commission, unanimously,         DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE.   Secretary to the Second Chamber        President of the Second Chamber            (K. ROGGE)                            (H. DANELIUS)