CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 14 septembre 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sFCACDBC6 { margin-top:22pt; margin-bottom:10pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sFD1A6A23 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:8pt; text-align:center } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s37171135 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10.5pt } .s8A531E82 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:10.5pt } .s96B1B5AB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:10pt; text-align:center } .s24E6874 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:center } .s598389FA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:13pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s598389F8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:11pt } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sCF7129D5 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s8565C3AF { margin:8pt 28.35pt 3pt 17pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s659CE682 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .sF13A94BC { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 34pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .s92A5AB2 { font-family:Arial; font-size:11pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s695099B3 { width:10.89pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s3F015572 { margin:0pt 28.35pt 3pt 51pt; text-indent:-17pt; page-break-after:avoid; line-height:12pt } .sB6D33163 { font-family:Arial; font-size:10pt; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } .s833B1EA7 { width:7.55pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sEAB539EC { width:7.83pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s4859184F { width:7pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s554D0A64 { width:4.78pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sB12058F2 { width:8.11pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sF5711BAC { width:6.44pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .sC15FC45D { width:3.55pt; text-indent:0pt; display:inline-block } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sB9D5CABB { width:28.35pt; display:inline-block } .s3AAE10DF { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s3CA22BA { font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s6B505E72 { margin:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s28F0D84C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s743F3A55 { margin-right:0pt; margin-left:0pt; padding-left:0pt } .s879C130D { margin-left:7.05pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:bold; text-transform:none } .sAE6FB95D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:32.01pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5E8F5A28 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3BD36361 { font-family:Arial; color:#00b050 } .s65DDED6B { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sDBC81028 { width:4.83pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFFD057F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s2A91C753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sDA7B489D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.45pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s2044A09A { margin-left:6.51pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .s5C5C410E { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.11pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sDECD9755 { margin-left:11.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:6.78pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s8EB5F569 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super } .sB25A0399 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.84pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s96FD6997 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s1A572304 { margin-top:6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:21.25pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sB853CD26 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt } .sF54F3725 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:42.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sADAE7E8B { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:55.95pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:8.4pt; font-family:serif; font-size:10pt } .sD3A9FB41 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:36pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s3A5EB13A { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:57.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.75pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s7FCB29BF { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:57.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:14.75pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .sC83D0F34 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:46.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .sB7A9661F { width:14.5pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s37D58556 { width:14.67pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s15962156 { margin-left:24.84pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.66pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s807BA660 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:24.16pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.34pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sDD998142 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s6C2746C6 { margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s6047437D { width:11.03pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD7D0356 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:4.85pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .sC47DA4E2 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.51pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .s715E7C6D { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:25.5pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CAC83C { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:19.67pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.18pt; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .s599F5480 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4B52A9A9 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s4196892D { width:3.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s74818F78 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .sE7B3A78A { width:1.99pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFBC99493 { font-style:italic } .sD11CFAB7 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s61CAB3E5 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:15.01pt; margin-bottom:3pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-family:Arial } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s7CB9076 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s9D025815 { width:20.21pt; display:inline-block } .s8D17D8A5 { width:127.42pt; display:inline-block } .s5A65B3DC { width:46.56pt; display:inline-block } .s44B8752F { width:177.11pt; display:inline-block } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .sD00444C6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt } .sFF075836 { margin-right:7.05pt; margin-left:7.05pt; border-collapse:collapse; } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } FIFTH SECTION CASE OF VALIULLINA AND OTHERS v. LATVIA (Applications nos. 56928/19 and 2 others)   JUDGMENT Art 14 (+ Art 2 P1) • Discrimination • Right to education • Non-discriminatory legislative amendments increasing the proportion of subjects taught in public schools in the only State language, Latvian, and thus reducing the use of Russian as the language of instruction • Russian-speaking and Latvian-speaking pupils in a relevantly similar situation • Impugned difference in treatment justified by the legitimate aims of protecting and strengthening the Latvian language - one of the State’s fundamental constitutional values - and ensuring the unity of the education system • Importance of specific historical context of unlawful occupation and annexation significantly restricting use of Latvian for more than fifty years as well as difficult choices following restoration of independence • Legislative amendments implemented gradually and flexibly, with sufficient scope for adaptation to the needs of those affected • Wide State margin of appreciation not overstepped • Education system in place ensured the use of minority languages in varying proportions • Objective and reasonable justification • Difference in treatment on grounds of language consistent with legitimate aims pursued and proportionate Art 2 P1 • Ratione materiae • Application of conclusions drawn in “Belgian linguistic case” • Art   2   P1 does not include the right to access education in a particular language but only guarantees the right to education in one of the national or official languages of the country concerned • Latvian being the only official language, applicants could not complain about decreased use of Russian as the language of instruction in Latvian schools per se   STRASBOURG 14 September 2023 FINAL   19/02/2024   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. Contents INTRODUCTION THE FACTS I.   GENERAL BACKGROUND TO THE CASE A.   Historical background B.   Overview of education reform II.   PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A.   Family circumstances B.   Education pursued by the applicant children C.   The Constitutional Court’s review III.   SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE I.   DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE A.   Constitutional provisions B.   The impugned legislative amendments C.   The Constitutional Court’s ability to refuse to examine a case which has already been decided D.   The Constitutional Court’s case-law E.   Other domestic material II.   INTERNATIONAL LAW AND PRACTICE A.   International treaties under the auspices of the United Nations B.   Reports by United Nations treaty bodies C.   Treaties within the Council of Europe D.   Reports and resolutions within the Council of Europe E.   Case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union F.   Recommendations adopted under the auspices of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (“OSCE”) G.   Comparative material THE LAW I.   JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS AND SCOPE OF THE CASE II.   ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION A.   The parties’ submissions on admissibility B.   The Court’s assessment on admissibility III.   ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION TAKEN ALONE Admissibility IV.   ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TAKEN IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION A.   Admissibility B.   Merits APPENDIX     In the case of Valiullina and Others v. Latvia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Georges Ravarani , President ,   Carlo Ranzoni,   Mārtiņš Mits,   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström,   María Elósegui,   Mattias Guyomar,   Mykola Gnatovskyy , judges ,   and Victor Soloveytchik, Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications (nos.   56928/19 and 2 others) against the Republic of Latvia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the   Convention”) by five Latvian nationals and five “permanently resident non-citizens” of Latvia (“the applicants”), on various dates indicated in the appended table; the decision to give notice of the applications to the Latvian Government (“the Government”); the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 11 July 2023, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns legislative amendments of 2018 (“the 2018 amendments” or “the 2018 reform”) whereby the proportion of subjects to be taught in the State language, that is, Latvian, was increased in public schools, and the use of Russian as the language of instruction was consequently reduced. The applicants relied on Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention. THE FACTS 2.     The applicants are parents and children who identify themselves as belonging to the Russian-speaking minority in Latvia (see, for more detail, paragraphs 32-34 below). They were represented by Mr A. Kuzmins and subsequently Mr D. Gorba, who were granted leave to represent them. 3.     The Government were represented by their Agent, Ms K. Līce. 4.     The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. GENERAL BACKGROUND TO THE CASE Historical background 5.     The historical background has been described most recently in Savickis   and Others v. Latvia ([GC] no. 49270/11, §§   12-16, 9   June 2022), with further references. Ethnic groups and languages spoken in Latvia 6 .     The Latvian Constitutional Court in judgments of 13   May 2005 and 23   April 2019 (see paragraphs 45 and 70 below) and parties in the present case provided statistical data on the main ethnic groups in Latvia, on the basis of the population censuses of 1935, 1959, 1989 and 2011. (i)     In 1935 77% of the total population were ethnic Latvians, 8.8 % were ethnic Russians, 4.9% were ethnic Jews, 3.3% were ethnic Germans and 2.5% were ethnic Poles. Other ethnicities constituted less than 2% of the population. (ii)     In 1959 62% of the total population were ethnic Latvians, 26.6% were ethnic Russians, 2.9% were ethnic Belarusians and 2.9% were ethnic Poles. Other ethnicities constituted less than 2% of the population. (iii)     In 1989 52% of the total population were ethnic Latvians, 34% were ethnic Russians, 4.5% were ethnic Belarusians, 3.5% were ethnic Ukrainians and 2.3% were ethnic Poles. Other ethnicities constituted less than 2% of the population. (iv)     In 2011 62.1% of the total population were ethnic Latvians, 26.9% were ethnic Russians, 3.3% were ethnic Belarusians, 2.2% were ethnic Ukrainians and 2.2% were ethnic Poles. Other ethnicities constituted less than 2% of the population. 7 .     According to the Government, during the Soviet occupation of Latvia, migrants in large numbers from territories of the other former USSR republics arrived in Latvia. In 1951-90 immigration rates exceeded emigration rates in Latvia, and during certain periods, the increase in migration was one of the highest in the world (the Constitutional Court also referred to such statistical data in case no. 2018-12-01). Consequently, during the Soviet occupation of Latvia, the proportion of people of Latvian ethnicity decreased significantly. 8 .     The applicants provided further information about the use of Latvian and Russian, on the basis of the population censuses of 1970, 1989, 2000 and 2011 in Latvia: (i)     in 1970 64.4% of the total population spoke Latvian, while 66.86% spoke Russian; (ii)     in 1989 61.69% of the total population spoke Latvian, while 81.23% spoke Russian; (iii)     in 2000 72.02% of the total population spoke Latvian, while 81.19% spoke Russian; (iv)     in 2011 62.07% of the total population used Latvian within the family, and 37.23% used Russian. On the basis of the results of the latest population census in 2011, the   applicants concluded that a large proportion of minorities who were not ethnic Russians also used Russian within the family. 9 .     The applicants also submitted statistical data on minority groups’ knowledge of Latvian. They relied on the population census of 1989 and 2000: (i)     in 1989 20.3% of people who were not ethnic Latvians knew Latvian; (ii)     in 2000 49.2% of people who were not ethnic Latvians knew Latvian. 10.     Further comprehensive data from the population censuses were not available – since the 2011 population census, a wider question about knowledge of languages had been replaced with a question about which language was used within the family (see paragraph 8 above). The applicants relied, among others, on a survey carried out in 2014 (with 801 randomly selected adult participants from minority groups), the results of which were as follows: 20.7% of the participants rated their knowledge of Latvian as very good, 27.6% rated it as good, 27.5% rated it as satisfactory, 18.8% rated it as poor, 4.2% had little or no knowledge of it, and 1.2% found it difficult to say. Overview in field of education 11 .     According to the Government, because of the migration organised by the USSR as the occupying power, the use of languages became a significant political issue. Although many migrants arriving in Latvia from other former USSR territories were not of Russian ethnicity, the only language in which they communicated in Latvia was Russian. During Latvia’s occupation by the USSR, the issue of communication was resolved by imposing vast “Russification” policies that established the Russian language as the language for daily communication without any restrictions, and by imposing its use in State institutions and schools. In the field of education, Russification was achieved by paying special attention to teaching Russian in schools which had Latvian as the language of instruction, and by establishing schools which had Russian as the only language of instruction, thereby creating a segregated education system (the Constitutional Court also referred to this information in case no. 2018-12-01). 12.     According to the applicants, public schools which taught in Russian had existed alongside Latvian schools for the last 100 years, that is, even before the Soviet period. During that time, Latvian had been a compulsory subject in Russian schools, in the same way that Russian had been compulsory in Latvian schools. They considered that in Soviet times there had been a “parallel” education system of Russian and Latvian schools. They alleged that people who had attended Latvian schools continued to demonstrate an excellent knowledge of Russian. However, when Russian had become an optional subject in Latvian schools, knowledge of it among the Latvian youth had deteriorated. Overview of education reform 13 .     After the restoration of Latvia’s independence, in order to promote the use of Latvian as the official language of the State and to facilitate integration, Latvia started to gradually implement an education reform by increasing how much Latvian was used as the language of instruction in educational programmes for minorities. Historical overview (1991-2015) 14 .     On 19 June 1991 the Supreme Council ( Augstākā Padome ) enacted the Law on Education, which stated that everyone had the right to receive an education in the State language (section 5), that is, in Latvian. However, the language of instruction in public schools continued to be Latvian or Russian, which was a practice inherited from Soviet times. 15 .     On 10 August 1995 the Law on Education was amended with a view to gradually introducing teaching in Latvian in schools where the language of instruction was not Latvian. The Law provided that starting from the 1996/1997 school year, in classes one to nine, at least two subjects had to be taught in the State language, that is, Latvian, and in classes ten to twelve, at least three subjects had to be taught in Latvian. 16 .     On 29 October 1998 Parliament adopted a new Education Law, which took effect on 1 June 1999, aiming to establish a unified education system. The Law provided that the only language of instruction in all public schools would be the State language, that is, Latvian. It also provided that the language of instruction might be different in private schools, in public schools implementing minority education programmes, and in other educational establishments as provided for by law. As regards public schools implementing minority education programmes, it was for the Ministry of Education to set out specific subjects to be taught in the State language (section 9(1) and (2)). At the same time, everyone had to learn the State language and take the State language proficiency test in order to complete their primary and secondary education (section 9(3)). 17 .     Schools that had previously taught in a minority language had the right to choose one of the education programmes adopted by the domestic authorities, depending on their pupils’ knowledge of Latvian. According to the applicants, these “minority schools” had the right to use their own educational programmes and a free choice as regards how much a particular language was used in teaching. According to the Government, all schools that chose to implement minority education programmes in classes one to nine completed that stage of the education reform by 2002. 18.     Furthermore, in accordance with the transitional provisions of the Education Law, from 1   September   2004 onwards all public secondary schools had to ensure instruction in the State language for pupils enrolled in class ten (paragraph 9, part 3 of the transitional provisions). 19.     After several sizable meetings and demonstrations against the education reform in 2003 and 2004, Parliament adopted amendments to the Education Law on 5 February 2004. 20 .     Following those amendments, from 1 September 2004 (the   2004/2005 school year) onwards all public secondary schools implementing educational programmes for minorities had to ensure instruction in the State language for pupils enrolled in class ten, in accordance with the general standard on secondary education set by the State. That standard specified that no less than three-fifths (60%) of the curriculum, including foreign languages, had to be taught in the State language; however, a curriculum relating to a minority language, identity and culture had to be taught in the minority language (paragraph 9, part 3 of the transitional provisions). It   followed that in the 2005/2006 school year pupils enrolled in classes ten and eleven were affected by these changes, and in the 2006/2007 school year all pupils enrolled in secondary school (classes ten, eleven and twelve) were affected. According to the Government, this essentially prolonged the transitional period by three years. Impugned legislative amendments 21 .     The impugned legislative amendments to the relevant provisions of the Education Law and the General Education Law were passed on 22   March 2018. They provided that the proportion of subjects to be taught in the State language, that is, Latvian, was to be increased in public schools. Some exceptions were provided for schools established in accordance with international agreements, as well as schools providing instruction in official languages of the European Union (EU), in order to ensure the learning of those languages (see paragraph 59 below). 22 .     According to the Annotation to the 2018 amendments, they had been prepared to ensure implementation of the principle of the use of the State language in education. Those amendments complied with the National Development Plan of Latvia for years 2014-2020 (approved by Parliament in 2012). That plan had set goals and objectives of the State language policy. It had emphasised the need to increase the use of Latvian in society and strengthen the position of Latvian in everyday communication. There had also been the need to expand the possibilities of integration in the society by developing attractive forms of learning of the Latvian language. The creation of a modern, coordinated learning system of the Latvian language for children and adults, promoting the use of the Latvian language in society, had also been set as a priority. The impugned amendments were also designed to ensure a legal basis for the implementation of the curriculum and foreign language integrated learning approach in general education institutions. (a)    Public primary and secondary schools 23 .     In accordance with those legislative amendments, over a transitional period from 1 September 2019 (the 2019/2020 school year) to 1   September 2021 (the 2021/2022 school year) the following changes relating to how much teaching was in the official language of the State were to be implemented: (i)     no less than 50% of the teaching should be in Latvian in classes one to six; (ii)     no less than 80% of the teaching should be in Latvian in classes seven to nine; (iii)     100% of the teaching should be in Latvian in classes ten to twelve. 24.     In addition to those requirements, primary schools were authorised to combine a primary education programme with a minority education programme by including a minority language and other subjects related to minority identity and the integration of minorities into Latvian society. 25 .     However, secondary schools were no longer authorised to combine a secondary education programme with an education programme for minorities. Instead, they were authorised to include subjects linked to minority languages, and minority identity and the integration of minorities into Latvian society. In particular, from 1 September 2020 onwards secondary schools were authorised to offer a specialised minority language and literature course, and other specialised subjects related to minority languages, identity, and culture. 26 .     These changes were introduced gradually: (i)     2019/2020 school year: no less than 50% of the teaching was to be in Latvian for classes one to six, and no less than 80% of the teaching was to be in Latvian for class seven only; (ii)     2020/2021 school year: no less than 80% of the teaching was to be in Latvian for class eight as well, and 100% of the teaching was to be in Latvian for classes ten to eleven only; (iii)     2021/2022 school year: no less than 80% of the teaching was to be in Latvian for class nine as well, and, in addition, 100% of the teaching was to be in Latvian for class twelve. (b)    Private primary and secondary schools 27.     The above-mentioned requirements were also applicable to private primary and secondary schools (see paragraph 59 below), which had until then enjoyed a broader discretion in choosing the language of instruction (see paragraphs 16-17 above). (c)    Pre-schools 28.     In accordance with Regulation no. 716 (issued on 21   November 2018), from 1 September 2019 onwards, in pre-schools for children from the age of five, the main language of communication during play-based lessons was set to be Latvian, except for special activities related to learning minority languages and learning about ethnic cultures (see   paragraph 64 below). For younger children, daily Latvian lessons were envisaged. (d)    Universities 29.     Following the legislative amendments to the Law on Higher Educational Institutions passed on 21 June 2018, the official language of the State also had to be used in higher education, with some exceptions (see paragraph 65 below). The changes were effective as of 1 January 2019. 30.     This rule was not applicable to two higher education institutions established by international agreements with other countries. Their operation was governed by special laws, allowing them to offer courses of study in English or, in some circumstances, another official language of the European Union (see paragraphs 77-78 of the preliminary ruling quoted in paragraph   94 below). Subsequent legislative amendments 31 .     On 29 September 2022 Parliament passed further legislative amendments to the relevant provisions of the Education Law and the General Education Law. Those amendments provided that all schools at pre-school and primary level had to ensure instruction in the official language of the State over a transitional period from 1   September 2023 to 1   September 2025. At the same time, municipal authorities were tasked with ensuring that pupils belonging to minorities could learn their language and preserve their culture through extracurricular educational programmes which were free of charge. The State also had to participate in financing these educational programmes (including by financing teachers’ remuneration and study materials), within the limits set by the Cabinet of Ministers. PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE Family circumstances Valiullina and Truši (application no.   56928/19) 32 .     The first applicant is the mother of the second, third and fourth applicants. The first applicant was born in Kazan, Russia, and the other applicants were born in Latvia. They are all “permanently resident non ‑ citizens” of Latvia. The family consider themselves ethnically mixed – the first applicant submits that she is an ethnic Tatar. The second, third and fourth applicants present themselves as ethnic Russians. Russian is the main language used within the family. Neronovas (application no. 7306/20) 33.     The fifth applicant is the mother of the sixth and seventh applicants. All the applicants were born in Latvia and consider themselves ethnic Russians. They are all Latvian citizens. Russian is the main language used within the family. Raizere-Rubcova and Rubcovas (application no.   11937/20) 34 .     The eighth applicant is the mother of the ninth and tenth applicants. All the applicants were born in Latvia. The eighth applicant is a “permanently resident non-citizen” of Latvia. The ninth and tenth applicants are Latvian citizens. The family consider themselves ethnically mixed – the eighth applicant submits that she is an ethnic German. The ninth and tenth applicants present themselves as ethnic Russians. Russian is the main language used within the family. Education pursued by the applicant children Valiullina and Truši (application no. 56928/19) 35.     During the 2019/2020 school year the second, third and fourth applicants were in class three at two different public schools. In the 2020/2021 and 2021/2022 school years they were in classes four and five. Since 1 September 2022 they have all been in class six at the same public school. They have been receiving an education in accordance with the primary education programme for minorities ( mazākumtautību izglītības programma pamatizglītības pakāpē ). 36 .     In the school attended by the second applicant, from 1   September 2019 onwards the curriculum was as follows. In class three, out of 24 weekly lessons, 15 were in Latvian and 9 were in the minority language (Minority Language and Maths lessons). In class four, out of 26   weekly lessons, 17 were in Latvian and 9 were in the minority language (Minority Language, Literature and Maths lessons). More complex subjects could also be taught bilingually in classes three and four (Natural Science lessons). In class five, out of 28 weekly lessons, 16 were in Latvian and 12 were in the minority language (Minority Language, Maths, Computer Science and Literature lessons). It follows that Latvian was used as the language of instruction approximately 63% of the time in class three, 65% of the time in class four, and 57% in class five. 37 .     In the school attended by the third and fourth applicants, the curriculum was similar. In class three, out of 24 weekly lessons, 12 were in Latvian and 12 were in the minority language (Minority Language, Maths, Natural Science and Social Science lessons). In class four, out of 26 weekly lessons, 15 were in Latvian and 11 were in the minority language (Minority Language, Maths, Natural Science and Literature lessons). In class five, out of 28 weekly lessons, 16 were in Latvian and 12 were in the minority language (Minority Language, Maths, Computer Science and Literature lessons). In class six, out of 30 weekly lessons, 16 were in Latvian and 14 were in the minority language (Minority Language, Maths, Computer Science, Latvian History, World History and Literature lessons). It follows that Latvian was used as the language of instruction approximately 50% of the time in class three, 58% of the time in class four, 57% of the time in class five, and 53% of the time in class six. Neronovas (application no. 7306/20) 38.     In the 2019/2020 school year the sixth and seventh applicants were at a public school, in classes seven and three respectively. In the 2020/2021, 2021/2022 and 2022/2023 school years the sixth applicant was in classes eight, nine and ten, and the seventh applicant was in classes four, five and six. They received an education in accordance with the primary educational programme for minorities; the sixth applicant subsequently received a secondary education where 100% of the teaching was in Latvian. 39 .     In the school attended by the sixth applicant, from 1 September 2019 onwards the curriculum was as follows. In class seven, out of 32 weekly lessons, 27 were in Latvian and 5 were in the minority language (Minority Language and Literature lessons). From 1 September 2020 onwards, in class eight, out of 34 weekly lessons, 30 were in Latvian and 4 were in the minority language (Minority Language and Literature lessons). From 1   September 2021 onwards, in class nine, out of 34 weekly lessons, 31 were in Latvian and   3 were in the minority language (Minority Language and Literature lessons). More complex subjects could also be taught bilingually (Foreign Language, History and Chemistry lessons). It follows that Latvian was used as the language of instruction approximately 84% of the time in class seven, 88% of the time in class eight, and 91% of the time in class nine. 40 .     In the school attended by the seventh applicant, the curriculum was similar to that of the second, third and fourth applicants (see paragraphs   36 ‑ 37   above), but more emphasis was placed on bilingual lessons. Raizere-Rubcova and Rubcovas (application no.   11937/20) 41.     In the 2019/2020 school year the ninth applicant was enrolled in class five of a public school in Latvia, but did not fully attend. On 8   November 2019 her mother informed the school that the ninth applicant would no longer attend school and would instead follow a distance-learning programme based at a private school in Russia. She asked for her daughter not to be excluded from the school and for her place to be kept for the next school year. According to the applicants, in the 2020/2021 school year the ninth applicant pursued her studies through the distance-learning programme based in Russia. According to the Government, she remained enrolled in class six in Latvia. 42.     In the 2019/2020 school year the tenth applicant was in class one at a public school in Latvia. In the 2020/2021 and 2021/2022 school years she was in classes two and three. She received an education in accordance with the primary educational programme for minorities. On   an unspecified date the tenth applicant was also enrolled in a distance-learning programme based at a private school in Russia. 43 .     In the school attended by the tenth applicant, from 1 September 2019 onwards the curriculum was as follows. In class one, out of 22 weekly lessons, 11   were in Latvian and 11 were in the minority language or bilingual (Minority Language, Maths, Natural Science and Social Science lessons). In class two, out of 23 weekly lessons, 12 were in Latvian and 11 were in the minority language or bilingual (Minority Language, Maths and Natural Science lessons). In class three, out of 24 weekly lessons, 13 were in Latvian and 11 were in the minority language or bilingual (Minority Language, Maths and Natural Science lessons). It follows that Latvian was used as the language of instruction approximately 50% of the time in class one, 52% of the time in class two, and 54% of the time in class three. The Constitutional Court’s review Application to the Constitutional Court 44 .     The domestic legislation concerning the language of instruction in public primary and secondary schools was reviewed by the Constitutional Court ( Satversmes tiesa ) in proceedings instituted by twenty members of parliament (case no.   2018-12-01). The Constitutional Court’s judgment 45 .     On 23 April 2019 the Constitutional Court adopted its judgment. It examined the compatibility of the 2018 amendments with Article 112 of the Constitution ( Satversme ) (the   right to education), the second sentence of Article   91 (the principle of non-discrimination), and Article 114 (the rights of minorities). In those proceedings, the Constitutional Court was not called upon to address the compatibility of the impugned legislative amendments with Article 96 of the Constitution (the right to private life) or Article 110 of the Constitution (the right to family life), or Article 8 of the Convention, as the parties had not raised any complaints in that regard. In so far as the contested domestic provisions related to the language of instruction in private schools, the Constitutional Court decided, for the sake of efficiency, to examine those issues in a separate case no.   2018-22-01 (see paragraph   73 below). 46 .     As regards Article 112 (the right to education), the Constitutional Court concluded that it required the State to establish and maintain an education system that would ensure that each and every pupil had the benefit of an education. The mandatory nature of primary education, established in the third sentence of Article 112 of the Constitution, which was based on an educated person being able to obtain information independently, to reason, to think critically and to adopt rational decisions, followed from the principle of a democratic State governed by the rule of law. Education was one of the prerequisites for a person’s choice to continue his or her self-improvement throughout his or her lifetime. Hence, education was one of the most important preconditions for consolidating a free and democratic society. The aim of Latvia’s system of education was enshrined in section 2 of the Education Law, which provided for every resident of Latvia having the opportunity to develop his or her mental and physical potential, in order to become an independent and fully developed individual, and a member of the democratic State of Latvia and its society. That aim – to ensure pupils’ right to receive such an education and have an upbringing that would allow them to develop and reinforce their feeling of affiliation with Latvia – was recognised by the Constitutional Court as being compatible with the interests of not only the pupils themselves, but those of society in general. At the same time, the Constitutional Court held that the right to education as guaranteed in Article 112 of the Constitution did not comprise the right of pupils or their parents to choose the language of instruction in public schools if that contradicted the principle of unity of the education system and did not facilitate equal access for pupils to the State education system which allowed them to achieve the objectives set by the education system. The Constitutional Court further concluded that Article 112 of the Constitution did not require the State to ensure that, in addition to the official language, it was possible to receive an education in another language in a proportion which pupils and their parents desired at primary and secondary level. The Constitutional Court held that within the framework of a unified education system, the State had ensured the right to receive an education in the official language in public schools, as required by Article 112 of the Constitution, which obliged the State to create an education system that was available, accessible, acceptable and adaptable. The Constitutional Court concluded that there was no proof that the contested provisions of the domestic legal framework that governed the language of instruction in schools affected the right to education as enshrined in Article 112 of the Constitution. For this reason, the Constitutional Court terminated the part of the proceedings concerning the compatibility of the 2018 amendments with Article 112 of the Constitution. 47 .     As regards the second sentence of Article 91 of the Constitution (the principle of non ‑ discrimination), the Constitutional Court concluded that the groups of persons identified by the twenty members of parliament in those proceedings – pupils whose native language was Latvian, the official language; pupils whose native language was another language; pupils who received an education in an EU language; and pupils who received an education in accordance with the bilateral or multilateral treaties which Latvia had concluded in the field of education – were not, for the purposes of an analysis of possible differential treatment and discrimination, in a comparable situation to pupils who acquired an education through the minority education programmes in Latvia. The court based its conclusion on the following reasons. 48 .     Firstly, the Constitutional Court held that pupils whose native language was not the State language of Latvia, but another language, were not in a comparable situation to those pupils whose native language was the State language. That conclusion was based on the constitutional status and significance of the Latvian language for the functioning of the democratic State. It relied on the preamble to and Article 4 of the Constitution, and its earlier case-law (case no.   2001-04-0103, quoted in Mentzen v. Latvia (dec.), no.   71074/01, ECHR 2004-XII). It also relied on the fact that neither the Constitution nor binding norms of international law imposed an obligation on the State to ensure that pupils could use a language that was not the State language as a language of instruction in a proportion which they desired. Instead, there was an obligation for the State to create an education system that would facilitate inclusion and integration, and would eliminate the consequences of the segregated education system that had existed during Latvia’s occupation by the USSR. 49 .     Secondly, the Constitutional Court held that in Latvia, pupils who received an education and acquired, inter alia , an in-depth knowledge of one of the official languages of the EU, were not in a comparable situation to pupils who chose to receive a general education in an educational institution that implemented an educational programme for minorities. In this regard, the Constitutional Court reiterated that the study of official languages of the EU was an objective for Latvia that derived from the preamble to the Constitution and the principle of good faith provided for under international law. Namely, the Constitutional Court emphasised that unlike the educational programmes for minorities, the opportunity to receive an education in one of the official languages of the EU had been created in order to facilitate the in-depth learning of foreign languages, and not to safeguard the culture and identity of a respective group of individuals. This related to educational institutions such as the Riga French Lycée, the Riga English Grammar School and the Grammar School of Nordic Languages. 50 .     Thirdly, the Constitutional Court held that in Latvia, pupils who received an education in schools which implemented the educational programmes for minorities in accordance with the bilateral or multilateral agreements concluded by Latvia in the field of education were not in a comparable situation to pupils who chose to receive a general education in an educational institution that implemented an educational programme for minorities. In this case, the following international agreements were relevant: agreements with Israel (in 1994), Estonia and Lithuania (in 1998), Belarus (in   2004), Poland (in 2006), and Ukraine (in 2017). With the aim of developing and safeguarding ethnic, cultural and linguistic identity, by concluding those agreements, the parties had committed themselves to ensuring that minorities living in the territory of Latvia could be taught about their mother tongue, history and culture, and could receive an education in their mother tongue in accordance with the education system in Latvia. None   of those agreements provided for persons in Latvia who belonged to minorities having the right to use a particular minority language as a language of instruction in education in a proportion that was different from the one specified in the Education Law. 51 .     In the light of the above, the Constitutional Court held that pupils who received an education in accordance with an education programme for minorities were not in a comparable situation to the above-mentioned groups of persons for the purposes of an analysis of possible differential treatment and discrimination. Thus, the Constitutional Court declared that the contested provisions of the domestic legal framework were compatible with the second sentence of Article 91 of the Constitution (the principle of non ‑ discrimination). 52 .     As regards Article 114 of the Constitution (the rights of minorities), the Constitutional Court firstly assessed the scope of the rights of minorities under the Constitution and the protection afforded to minorities under international law. It referred, for example, to the United Nation