CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 16 novembre 2023

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s13C79B1A { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s3E9356B0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:8pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s34DFC730 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s4064D662 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:4pt; text-align:center } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s13FE8339 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:8.5pt } .sDEFD88D7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:8.5pt } .s3BD36361 { font-family:Arial; color:#00b050 } .s261A02A9 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:8.5pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .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 } .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 } .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 } .sFFD057F { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:14.2pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .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 } .s83BE5C30 { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super } .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 } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s55F67FD3 { 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; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s3970C00F { width:8.17pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sCD82236A { 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; line-height:113%; font-size:10pt } .s320E5A8E { width:5.95pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .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 } .s9D48DD53 { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s2A91C753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .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 } .sECF8538A { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .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 } .s957C7903 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:51pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:0.05pt; font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s3C5F0D74 { margin-left:6.41pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sC4FC4B68 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:57.46pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.99pt; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sF1F033E { margin-left:-19.04pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:1.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .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 } .sFABD3260 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:62.35pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-19.8pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s16F6432D { width:7.9pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3CAF9CA4 { width:8.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sD051EF8 { width:3.72pt; 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 } .s2D9C6089 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s69DCC830 { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .sC986E16F { font-family:Arial; color:#ffffff } .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 } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s2F3EB0E4 { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sE1A7A04C { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#424242 } .sBAADFE8C { border:0.75pt solid #838383; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } FIFTH SECTION CASE OF DŽIBUTI AND OTHERS v. LATVIA (Applications nos. 225/20 and 2 others)   JUDGMENT   Art 14 (+ Art 2 P1) • Discrimination • Right to education • Non-discriminatory legislative amendments increasing the proportion of subjects taught in private 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 • Legitimate aims of protecting and strengthening the Latvian language and ensuring the unity of the education system • Private schools considered to be part of the State educational system • General education standards applied to both private and public schools that issued graduation certificates • State’s rigorous approach in regulating private education sector justified • Legislative amendments implemented gradually and flexibly, with sufficient scope for adaptation to the needs of those affected • Private schools received public funding • Objective and reasonable justification • Conclusions reached in Valiullina and Others v.   Latvia in respect of public schools fully relevant to Court’s analysis on private schools • Difference in treatment on grounds of language consistent with legitimate aims pursued and proportionate Art 14 (+ Art 2 P1) • Discrimination • Right to education • Non-discriminatory treatment of Russian-speaking pupils vis-à-vis pupils whose mother tongue was one of the official EU languages • Both groups of pupils in a relevantly similar situation • Objective and reasonable justification • Difference in treatment on grounds of language consistent with pursued legitimate aim of facilitating the learning of EU languages and proportionate Art 14 (+ Art 2 P1) • Discrimination • Right to education • No evidence of difference in treatment between Russian-speaking pupils and pupils whose mother tongue was an official language of a country with which Latvia had concluded an international agreement Art 2 P1 • Ratione materiae • Application of conclusions drawn in Valiullina and Others v. Latvia • Art   2 P1 does not include the right to access education in a particular language • 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 • Constitutional Court’s findings that impugned legislative amendments in respect of private schools interfered with the right to education taken in conjunction with the rights of minorities under the Constitution did not expand scope of Art   2 P1 • Broader interpretation entailing stronger protection in the domestic legal system than the Convention consistent with Art   53   STRASBOURG 16 November 2023 FINAL   19/02/2024   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Džibuti 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.   225/20 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 (“the applicants”), on various dates indicated in the appended table; the decision to give notice to the Latvian Government (“the Government”) of the applications; the parties’ observations; Having deliberated in private on 17 October 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 private schools and the use of Russian as the language of instruction was consequently reduced. The applicants rely on Article 8 and Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 of 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 15-17 below). They were represented by Ms I. Nikuļceva, a lawyer practising in Riga. 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). 6.     Statistical data on the main ethnic groups in Latvia have been described in Valiullina and Others v. Latvia (nos.   56928/19 and 2 others, §§   6-10, 14   September 2023 (not final)), as has information about immigration rates in Soviet times and the use of Latvian and Russian and minority groups’ knowledge of Latvian in Soviet times and following the restoration of Latvia’s independence. 7.     The historical background of education, Russification policies and minority schools in Soviet times has been described in Valiullina and Others (cited above, §§   11-12). Overview of the education reform 8 .     An overview of the education reform pursued by the Latvian authorities following the restoration of the country’s independence has also been described in Valiullina and Others (cited above, §§ 13-20). 9 .     According to the applicants, the education reform prior to the 2018 amendments did not establish any specific requirements in relation to the language of instruction in private schools. The relevant provision (section 9(2)(1) of the Education Law) clearly provided an exception from the general requirement to use the State language, stating “Education may be acquired in another language: ... in private schools”. This provision remained unchanged until the 2018 amendments. Private schools could provide their own educational programmes and had a free choice as regards how much a language was used in teaching (ibid., §   17). While they had some freedom in organising the provision of education, they did not have any choice as to the results to be achieved – their pupils had to learn the State language and take examinations completing their studies, which included the State language exam. The applicants referred to findings made by the European Commission for Democracy through Law (“the Venice Commission”) concluding that prior to the 2018 reform, education in the State language had been mandatory only in public schools (paragraph 43 of the opinion, quoted in Valiullina and Others , cited above, §   93). 10 .     The Government submitted that private schools formed part of the State education system in Latvia as regards the language of instruction to be used, and this was not an internal matter for each individual school. In respect of both public and private schools, the Government referred to the curriculum requirements set by the State, the licences issued to schools by the State, the educational programmes accredited by the State and the certificates approved by the State at the end of a pupil’s studies. They also referred to the fact that private schools in Latvia were co-funded by the State and/or municipal authorities (in relation to teachers’ remuneration, catering for pupils in classes one to four, and study materials) (see, for more details, paragraphs   119-120 below). 11.     The impugned 2018 amendments provided that all schools, including private schools, had to ensure instruction in the State language (see Valiullina and Others , cited above, §§ 21-27). The requirement to acquire an education in the official language did not apply to educational institutions implementing educational programmes in accordance with bilateral or multilateral international agreements, educational institutions in which the subjects of general education programmes were completely or partly taught in a foreign language to ensure the learning of other official languages of the European Union (EU), and educational institutions specified in other laws, such as the International School Law (ibid., §§   59 and 62). 12 .     In accordance with the 2018 amendments, over a transitional period from 1 September 2019 (the 2019/20 school year) to 1   September 2021 (the 2021/22 school year), the following changes relating to how much teaching was in the official language of the State were to be implemented (ibid., §§   23, 26-27, 59): (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. 13 .     Primary and secondary schools were also authorised to include subjects linked to minority languages and other specialised subjects (ibid., §§   24-25, 59-60). 14.     Subsequent legislative amendments to the relevant provisions of the Education Law and the General Education Law were passed in 2022. They have been described in Valiullina and Others (cited above, § 31). PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE Family circumstances Džibuti (application no.   225/20) 15 .     The first applicant is the father of the second and third applicants. The first applicant was born in Sukhumi, Georgia, and the second and third applicants were born in Latvia. They are all Latvian citizens; the first applicant acquired Latvian citizenship by naturalisation in 2001. The family is ethnically mixed – the first applicant identifies himself as being of Russian and Georgian origin; in the official records his ethnicity is recorded as Georgian. The second and third applicants identify themselves as ethnic Russians. In the official records the ethnicity of the second applicant has not been recorded; the ethnicity of the third applicant is recorded as Georgian. Their mother is Ukrainian. The family identifies with Russian culture and the Russian language. Russian is the main language used within the family. The first, second and third applicants lodged a constitutional complaint concerning the language of instruction in private schools, but the proceedings were instituted only in respect of the second and third applicants (see paragraph 25 below). Boroduļins (application no. 11642/20) 16.     The fourth applicant stated that he was lodging an application on his own behalf and on behalf of his son, who was born in 2003. They were born in Latvia and consider themselves ethnic Russians. The fourth applicant was a “permanently resident non-citizen” of Latvia until 2009, when he acquired Latvian citizenship by naturalisation. His son remains a “permanently resident non-citizen” of Latvia. Russian is the main language used within the family. Ševšeļova (application no. 21815/20) 17 .     The fifth applicant stated that she was lodging an application on her own behalf and on behalf of her daughter, who was born in 2006. They were born in Latvia and consider themselves ethnic Russians. They are Latvian citizens. The father of the fifth applicant’s daughter considers himself to be of Russian and Jewish origin; in the official records his ethnicity is recorded as Jewish. The family identifies with Russian culture and the Russian language. Russian is the main language used within the family. The fifth applicant lodged a constitutional complaint concerning the language of instruction in private schools on her own behalf and on behalf of her daughter, but the proceedings were instituted only in respect of her daughter (see paragraph 25 below). Education pursued by the applicant children Džibuti (application no.   225/20) 18 .     In the 2014/15 school year the second applicant was in class one at a private school, school E. One subject (Latvian) was taught in Latvian, and other subjects were taught in Russian. Subsequently, in school years 2015-19 he attended classes two, three, four, and five at another private school, school L. Although most of the subjects were taught in Russian, the educational programme there was similar to one of the programmes envisaged for public schools (see Valiullina and Others , cited above, § 17). According to the applicants, only a small proportion of subjects were taught in Latvian. The second applicant received an education in accordance with that school’s primary educational programme, without any specifications about how much Latvian should be used as the language of instruction. According to the Government, he received an education in accordance with the educational programme for minorities at primary level. 19 .     Following the 2018 reform, during the 2019/20 school year the second applicant was in class six at another private school, school K. One subject (Latvian Studies, which covered such topics as the Latvian language, literature, history, culture, nature and geography) was taught in Latvian, and other subjects were taught in English. According to the applicants, the second applicant attended school K. because school L. was not ready to provide a high-quality education in Latvian; it lacked study materials and qualified teachers to teach in Latvian. In the school years 2020-23 the second applicant was in classes seven, eight and nine at school K. He received an education in accordance with the international educational programme (British education system). 20 .     In the school years 2017-19 the third applicant attended classes one and two at school L. Although most of the subjects were taught in Russian, the educational programme was similar to one of the programmes envisaged for public schools (see Valiullina and Others , cited above, § 17). According to the applicants, only a small proportion of subjects were taught in Latvian, and the third applicant received an education in accordance with that school’s primary educational programme, without any specifications about how much Latvian should be used as the language of instruction. According to the Government, she received an education in accordance with the educational programme for minorities at primary level. 21.     Following the 2018 reform, in the school years 2019-23 the third applicant was in classes three, four, five and six at the same private school. From 1 September 2019 onwards the school had to ensure that no less than 50% of the teaching in classes one to six was in Latvian. Boroduļa (application no. 11642/20) 22 .     Prior to the 2018 reform, the fourth applicant’s son was at a private school, school N., where most of the subjects were taught in Russian; only a small proportion of subjects were taught in Latvian. According to the applicants, the son received an education in accordance with that school’s educational programme, without any specifications about how much Latvian should be used as the language of instruction. Following the 2018 reform, in the school year 2019/20 he was in class ten at school N., where he had to study all subjects in Latvian, save for the minority language and other specialised subjects (see paragraph 13 above). In the school years 2020-22 he was in classes eleven and twelve at the same school. Ševšeļova (application no. 21815/20) 23 .     Prior to the 2018 reform, the fifth applicant’s daughter was at school L., where most of the subjects were taught in Russian; only a small proportion of subjects were taught in Latvian (see paragraph 18 above). She received education in accordance with the educational programme for minorities at primary level. Following the 2018 reform, in the school year 2019/20 she was in class seven at school L., which from 1 September 2019 onwards had to ensure that no less than 80% of the teaching in class seven was in Latvian. In the school year 2020/21 she was in class eight at a public school, which from 1   September 2020 onwards had to ensure that no less than 80% of the teaching in class eight was in Latvian. In those schools, she received an education in accordance with the educational programme for minorities at primary level. The Constitutional Court’s review Applications before the Constitutional Court 24 .     The domestic legislation concerning the language of instruction in private primary and secondary schools (one impugned provision – section 9(1) 1 of the Education Law) was reviewed by the Constitutional Court ( Satversmes tiesa ) in proceedings instituted by twenty members of parliament and fourteen pupils, including the second and third applicants and the fifth applicant’s daughter in the present case (case no. 2018-22-01 and other cases subsequently joined to that case). 25 .     On 12 November 2018 the Constitutional Court instituted proceedings in relation to the second and third applicants as concerns the compatibility of the impugned provision with the first sentence of Article 112 of the Constitution (the right to education) and Article 114 (the rights of minorities). Considering that the applicants had failed to provide legal reasoning as to the compatibility of the impugned provision with Article 91 of the Constitution (the equal treatment and non-discrimination principles), the Constitutional Court initially refused to institute proceedings in that regard. However, upon receipt of a newly formulated application with proper legal reasoning, on 8   April 2019 the Constitutional Court instituted proceedings as regards the compatibility of the impugned provision with the second sentence of Article   91 of the Constitution. The latter application was lodged by the second and third applicants; it did not include any requests to examine the compatibility of the impugned provision with the right to respect for private and family life. 26 .     The Constitutional Court consistently refused to institute proceedings in relation to parents, such as the first applicant (decision of 12   November 2018) and the fifth applicant in the present case. The court found that they had failed to provide legal reasoning as to how the requirements regarding the language of instruction in private schools could affect their fundamental rights. While the first applicant had referred to the right to choose an education for his children, he had not provided legal reasoning in respect of his contention that the Constitution enshrined the right of a parent to request an education in a particular language. Thus, the Constitutional Court held that the first applicant had failed to comply with the requirements laid down in section 18(1)(4), section 19 2 (1) and 19 2 (6)(1) of the Law on the Constitutional Court: the obligation to provide legal reasoning; the right to submit an application if a person considered that his fundamental rights had been affected; and the obligation to substantiate a contention that fundamental rights had been affected. The Constitutional Court refused to institute proceedings, referring to section 20 of the Law on the Constitutional Court (see paragraph 57 below). 27 .     The Constitutional Court also refused to institute proceedings as concerns the compatibility of the impugned provision with Article 110 of the Constitution (the right to family life), in relation to the second and third applicants in the present case (decision of 12 November 2018). By making only general remarks without properly substantiating their submission that the impugned amendment had not been adopted in accordance with the law, and without providing any arguments as to the proportionality of the alleged restriction, the second and third applicants had failed to provide legal reasoning. Thus, the Constitutional Court held that they had failed to comply with the requirements laid down in section 18(1)(4) of the Law on the Constitutional Court. The Constitutional Court refused to institute proceedings, referring to section 20 of the Law on the Constitutional Court (see paragraph 57 below). 28 .     Other individuals also lodged applications with the Constitutional Court. On 14 January 2019, in relation to one application lodged by the fifth applicant and her daughter, among others, the Constitutional Court initially refused to institute proceedings, because they had failed to provide legal reasoning. However, upon receipt of a newly formulated application with proper legal reasoning, on 4   March 2019 the court instituted proceedings in relation to the fifth applicant’s daughter as concerns the compatibility of the impugned provision with the first sentence of Article 112 of the Constitution (the right to education) and the second sentence of Article 91 (the principle of non-discrimination). The latter application was lodged by the fifth applicant and her daughter, among others, and it did not include any requests to examine the compatibility of the impugned provision with the right to respect for private and family life. The Constitutional Court’s judgment 29 .     On 13 November 2019 the Constitutional Court adopted its judgment. It examined the compatibility of the impugned provision with the first sentence of Article 112 of the Constitution (the right to education), in conjunction with Article 114 (the rights of minorities), the second sentence of Article 91 (the principle of non-discrimination) and Article 1 (the principle of legal certainty). In those proceedings, the Constitutional Court was not called upon to address the compatibility of the impugned provision with Article   96 of the Constitution (the right to private life) or Article 8 of the Convention, as none of the parties had raised any complaints in that regard (see paragraphs 25 and 28 above). Nor did it examine the compatibility of the impugned provision with Article 110 of the Constitution (the right to family life), as it had earlier refused to institute proceedings with respect to the second and third applicants because they had failed to provide legal reasoning, in particular, reasoning as to whether the alleged interference was provided for by law and proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued (see paragraph   27 above). Other applications lodged with the Constitutional Court (for example, an application lodged by the fifth applicant’s daughter) did not contain any complaints under Article 110 of the Constitution either (see paragraph   28 above). (a)    General observations made by the Constitutional Court 30 .     At the outset, the Constitutional Court noted that the impugned provision governed the language of instruction in private schools offering general and vocational education at primary and secondary level. The applicants alleged that the impugned provision was not compatible with the Constitution, as the 2018 reform had adversely affected the rights of persons belonging to minorities. The regulation on the use of minority languages in education in private schools had been included in several domestic law provisions and implemented together with other provisions on the use of languages. The Constitutional Court assessed the impugned provision in the context of the regulation enacted as part of the impugned reform in the education system. Having reviewed the applicable domestic regulation – the relevant provisions of the Education Law, the General Education Law, Regulations nos.   468(2014) and 747(2018) as regards State standards on general education, and Regulations nos.   281(2013) and 416   (2019) as regards State standards on secondary education – the Constitutional Court established that once the whole legal framework in the context of the reform of the education system in question entered into force, general education in private schools would be provided in the State language. However, the contested provision did not prohibit the use of minority languages in general education. Namely, private schools implementing general education programmes would be entitled to (i)     implement minority education programmes at primary level, in accordance with the domestic legal specifications about how much the language of instruction should be used, and independently determine which subjects should be taught in Latvian, in the minority language, or bilingually; and (ii)     include a specialised course, “Minority Language and Literature”, at secondary level, and devote part of the curriculum to subjects which had not been included in the State standards on minority language, identity and integration into Latvian society. (b)    Article 112 taken in conjunction with Article 114 of the Constitution (i)       Scope of the protected rights 31 .     The Constitutional Court held that general education was not limited to the acquisition of certain knowledge and skills. The objectives of general education had to be viewed more broadly, that is, they also included certain societal objectives – ensuring a child’s development of respect for his or her parents, his or her own cultural identity, language and values, the constitutional values of the country in which the child was living, the country from which he or she might originate, and other cultures (the court referred to Article   29 § 1 (c) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child). Every pupil had to be able to use the State language fluently in order to be able to function successfully in society after completing his or her general education. The State was entitled to specify, in general education standards, such requirements as to the content of general education and the learning process which were necessary to ensure that pupils were able to use the State language fluently. The Constitutional Court referred to its ruling in a case concerning public schools in which it had stated that every person who permanently resided in Latvia had to have a level of Latvian which allowed his or her full participation in the life of a democratic society (see Valiullina and Others , cited above, § 53). A democratic State governed by the rule of law was based on an educated person being able to independently obtain information, to judge, to think critically and to make rational decisions. Education was one of the prerequisites for a person’s choice to continue his or her self-improvement throughout his or her life. Thus, education was one of the essential preconditions for the consolidation of a free democratic society (ibid.). Consequently, the State had a duty to ensure that the legal framework in the field of general education allowed it to achieve its objective. This obligation was not limited to public schools, but also applied to private schools providing general education. 32.     However, Article 114 of the Constitution provided that minorities had the right to preserve and develop their language and their ethnic and cultural identity. Article 114 embodied the principle of respect for minorities, and their uniqueness was also protected in Latvia. Unlike other Articles of Chapter VIII of the Constitution (on “Fundamental Human Rights”), Article   114 protected not only the right of persons to preserve their language and culture, but also a collective right with a common aim – to ensure the preservation and development of the identity of persons belonging to a minority. In order to establish the scope of protection under Article   114 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court considered international material (Article   13 of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities – the “Framework Convention”, Article 30 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, Article 13 §§ 3 and 4 the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and Article   5   §   1 of the Convention against Discrimination in Education). The first sentence of Article 112 of the Constitution and Article   114 provided that persons belonging to minorities had the right to establish and manage private schools with the aim of acquiring, preserving and developing their language and culture. This applied to different educational institutions. In particular, persons belonging to minorities could establish non-formal educational institutions, such as summer schools and Sunday schools, which provided education tailored to their needs. They could also establish and manage private schools, which provided general education. 33 .     Nonetheless, the State had not only the right but also an obligation to establish education standards that were necessary to achieve the objectives of general education (see paragraph 31 above), and the State had to apply those standards to both public and private schools. Therefore, the State could officially recognise only an education acquired in private schools that complied with the standards adopted by the State to attain the objectives of general education. Therefore, private schools (including those established by persons belonging to minorities) that had chosen to offer a general education to pupils and to issue them with State-approved certificates attesting to the completion of their studies formed part of the State educational system, and were subject to standards set by the State as regards general education. In those standards, the State had to specify not only the subjects to be mastered by pupils, but also the appropriate requirements necessary for achieving the objectives of education. The language of instruction was one of the essential elements in the process of obtaining a general education, and the State had the right to regulate it. When regulating the language of instruction in schools, including private schools, the State had to respect the rights of persons belonging to minorities which were enshrined in Article   114 of the Constitution. In particular, depending on the circumstances, the State should ensure the right balance between the need to ensure that minorities had access to general education in the State language at a level sufficient to enable them to integrate into society, and the opportunity for minorities to learn their own language and obtain an education in that language; this was in order to preserve minorities’ linguistic and cultural identity, but not cause language-based segregation. In addition, the State had to ensure that the regulation of the use of language did not render the right to education of persons belonging to minorities ineffective. In particular, the State had to ensure that the quality of education for persons belonging to minorities would not suffer, and that they would not be denied access to education owing to language barriers. Thus, in accordance with the first sentence of Article 112 of the Constitution and Article 114, the State had to provide such regulation of the use of languages in general education that would, depending on the circumstances prevailing in the State, ensure the right balance between the learning of the official language and protection of the rights of minorities in general education in private schools established by persons belonging to minorities. 34 .     The Constitutional Court further noted that for the right to education to be effective, pupils had to be able to benefit from the education they received. This meant that pupils had the right to have their education officially recognised by the State if it was obtained in accordance with criteria set by the State (the court referred to Case “relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium” (merits), 23   July 1968, p.   31, § 4, Series A no. 6 – the “ Belgian linguistic case ”). By regulating the content and teaching process used in general education in private schools, including the use of the State language and minority languages, the State had restricted the freedom of choice of persons belonging to minorities in respect of private schools where they could acquire a general education while preserving their identity. Namely, pupils’ choice was limited to those private “minority schools” that implemented general education programmes with a curriculum that complied with the State standards on educational content and the use of languages, and which were eligible to issue a certificate of general education recognised by the State. Thus, the provisions of the State’s general education standards – those which determined what proportion of the curriculum related to minority culture and identity, or regulated the learning or use of minority languages in general education in private schools – restricted the rights of persons belonging to minorities to have an education and preserve and develop their language and identity which were enshrined in the first sentence of Article 112 of the Constitution and Article   114. The impugned legal provision, together with other provisions related to it, regulated the use of the State language and minority languages in general education in private schools. Hence, the impugned provision restricted the fundamental rights enshrined in the first sentence of Article 112 of the Constitution, taken in conjunction with Article 114 of the Constitution. (ii)     Provided by law, legitimacy of the aims pursued and proportionality 35 .     Consequently, the Constitutional Court assessed whether that restriction was prescribed by law, had a legitimate aim and was proportionate. Firstly, the impugned provision had been enacted in accordance with the procedure established in the domestic legal framework, and the legislature had complied with the principle of proper law-making ( labas likumdošanas princips ). Secondly, the restriction had a legitimate aim – protection of the democratic order and the rights of other persons. Namely, everyone had to have a level of Latvian which allowed the members of minority groups to successfully integrate into society. Moreover, the requirement of sufficient knowledge of the State language also protected the rights of persons belonging to the State nation ( valstsnācija ) to use the State language freely in all areas of life and in the entire territory of the State. Thirdly, as to proportionality, the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicants’ arguments that there were alternative and less restrictive means to achieve the legitimate aims sought. The Constitutional Court referred to its ruling of 13   May 2005 in which it had held that teaching the State language as a separate subject was not effective; it was necessary for people to acquire the ability to use the State language, and that ability could be acquired by their primarily using the State language in learning (see Valiullina and Others , cited above, §§ 70-71). It also noted the views expressed by experts in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court that people could not fully acquire the State language if it was taught as a separate subject; in order for this to happen, it was necessary to have teaching that was generally in the State language. The Constitutional Court concluded that learning the State language as a separate subject could not provide a learner with an understanding of its practical use and the vocabulary acquired through using the State language as a language of instruction in other subjects. It followed that there were no alternative means to achieve the legitimate aims as effectively. 36.     The Constitutional Court then went on to examine whether the restriction of the applicants’ rights had been appropriate. In doing so, they examined whether (i)     the proportion of use of the State language following the 2018 reform had impaired the quality of education in minority educational programmes (it referred to the judgment of 13 May 2005, summarised in Valiullina and Others , cited above, § 71), and (ii)   a fair balance had been ensured between the promotion of the use of the State language and the exercise of the rights of persons belonging to minorities in general education. 37 .     As to the quality of education, the Constitutional Court referred to its judgment of 23 April 2019 in which it had held that the Ministry of Education and Science, when implementing the education reform, had consistently provided the necessary support measures – study materials, continuous training, and professional development opportunities for teachers. Moreover, prior to the 2018 reform a significant proportion of general education had had to be offered in the State language or bilingually. Thus, the impugned provision did not lay down new legal arrangements, but merely increased the use of the State language in general education. As to the monitoring mechanism for the quality of education (see the Constitutional Court’s judgment of 13 May 2005, summarised in Valiullina and Others , cited above, §   71), it noted that in 2009, with a view to promoting the quality and competitiveness of education, the State Education Inspectorate had been transformed into the State Education Quality Service. The relevant regulations had been enacted in 2013, and that service had been tasked with ensuring the quality assessment of general education and supervising the education process, among other things. Thus, the State had put in place a mechanism for monitoring the quality of education, which applied to public and private schools. On the basis of the material presented to it, the Constitutional Court held that there was no reason to conclude that the impugned provision had had adverse consequences on the quality of education. At the same time, the Constitutional Court emphasised that the State had a duty to monitor the quality of education on an ongoing basis, making effective use of the State’s quality control mechanism for the education process in order to detect possible changes in the quality of education. 38 .     As to the fair balance to be ensured, the Constitutional Court noted that in accordance with Articles 112 and 114 of the Constitution, the State had to ensure that persons belonging to minorities had a proper opportunity to maintain their identity in general education in private schools. The improvement of people’s knowledge of the State language and the implementation of minority rights were not mutually exclusive aims, and the implementation of minority rights could not interfere with effective and thorough teaching of the State language. If a pupil in general education did not acquire a sufficient level of Latvian to be able to use it freely, then his or her education could not be considered to be of high quality. The Constitutional Court noted that language was an important element of a person’s identity, particularly for a person belonging to a minority. Thus, a legal regulation that completely excluded the use of a minority language from the educational process, or reduced it to the extent that the minority language was used as a language of instruction only in lessons where that language was being taught, would not be compatible with Article 114 of the Constitution (the court referred to paragraph 99 of the opinion issued by the Venice Commission “On the provisions of the Law on Education of 5   September 2017 which concern the use of the State language and minority and other languages in Education” in relation to Ukraine, CDL-AD(2017)030, 9   December 2017). However, the impugned provision and other provisions related to it did not prohibit a person from obtaining an education in a minority language; the State’s general education standards included guarantees for preserving the mother tongue and identity of persons belonging to minorities. After the entry into effect of the impugned provision, a minority language could still be used as a language of instruction, in compliance with the rules concerning how much that language should be used in primary education, and it could be used as a language of instruction in lessons where that language and literature in that language was being taught, as well as in other lessons in secondary education related to the id