CEDH · CASELAW;JUDGMENTS;CHAMBER;ENG — 18 juillet 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s26F67D91 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:3pt } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA1F0F833 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; 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 } .sBEC012D4 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:3pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sB853CD2F { font-family:Arial; font-size:3pt } .s780F5245 { border:0.75pt solid #000000; clear:both } .s795B4A6B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-top:1pt; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .sA57875D8 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:11pt } .s3BD36361 { font-family:Arial; color:#00b050 } .s2D1013D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; font-size:10pt } .s55E5497F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; padding-right:4pt; padding-left:4pt; padding-bottom:1pt; font-size:10pt } .s3B53EBCE { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; font-size:3pt } .s598389FB { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sF5E1C6CF { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; text-decoration:underline; color:#ff0000 } .sFE10DC93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .sE208486F { font-family:Arial; color:#ff0000 } .s2E932ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .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 } .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 } .s7AE800C3 { width:4.28pt; 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 } .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 } .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 } .sE5273FBD { margin-top:6pt; margin-left:21.25pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:7.1pt; text-align:center; font-size:10pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .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 } .s3A692EA6 { margin-top:14pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .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 } .s684237A1 { margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; text-transform:uppercase; list-style-position:inside } .s8B983D37 { text-transform:none } .s79881E72 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:17.85pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-17.85pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; list-style-position:inside } .s2A91C753 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .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 } .sC66C6FB1 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:16.34pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:3.51pt; 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 } .s13DD736A { margin-left:17.96pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; padding-left:2.99pt; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .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 } .sF7610474 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:36.55pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s695E2BCF { margin-top:0pt; 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 } .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 } .sFF8BF293 { width:8.05pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s3CAF9CA4 { width:8.72pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sEB3FA797 { width:8.43pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s8508A14D { width:8.94pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s28F2AD21 { margin-left:11.05pt; margin-bottom:6pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-weight:normal; font-style:italic } .sD0682254 { margin-top:0pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s30C8A987 { width:4.78pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .sB2ED4664 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:48.75pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-17pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:10pt } .s4E0353E8 { width:4.23pt; font:7pt 'Times New Roman'; display:inline-block } .s448F0C15 { margin-top:14pt; margin-left:18pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:-18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } .sBD1BE8CC { width:33.89pt; display:inline-block } .sE37FF279 { width:144.11pt; display:inline-block } .s5D826FD4 { width:25.88pt; display:inline-block } .s1B61D60 { width:156.43pt; 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 DJERI AND OTHERS v. LATVIA (Applications nos. 50942/20 and 2022/21)   JUDGMENT   Art 14 (+ Art 2 P1) • Discrimination • Right to education • Non-discriminatory legislative amendments increasing the use of the only State language, Latvian, in compulsory second stage of public and private pre-school education (children aged five to seven), 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, ensuring the unity of the education system and preparing children for primary education • Conclusions reached in Valiullina and Others v.   Latvia and Džibuti and Others v.   Latvia fully relevant to Court’s analysis on pre-school education which was also part of the State educational system • Somewhat wider margin of appreciation afforded to States with respect to pre-school education • Legislative amendments implemented gradually, considering stakeholders’ views and with sufficient scope for adaptation to the needs of those affected • Margin of appreciation not overstepped • Difference in treatment on grounds of language consistent with legitimate aims pursued and proportionate • Non-compulsory first stage of pre-school education (children aged one and a half to five) not “within the ambit” of Art   2 P1 taken together with Art   14 and, in any event, inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies Art 14 (+ Art 2 P1) • Discrimination • Right to education • No discrimination between Russian-speaking children with special needs and Russian-speaking children without special needs at the second stage of pre-school education as alleged by the first and second applicants • State provided support mechanisms, general and individualised, for children with special needs • Bilingual approach ensured throughout pre-school education • Failure to substantiate allegations Art 2 P1 • Ratione materiae • Application of conclusions drawn in Valiullina and Others v.   Latvia and Džibuti 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 the right to education under the Constitution comprised both stages of pre-school education 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   Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court.     STRASBOURG 18 July 2024 FINAL   18/10/2024   This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Djeri and Others v. Latvia, The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:   Mattias Guyomar, President ,   Lado Chanturia ,   Carlo Ranzoni,   Mārtiņš Mits,   Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström,   Mykola Gnatovskyy,   Stéphane Pisani , judges , and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar, Having regard to: the applications (nos.   50942/20 and 2022/21) 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 seven Latvian nationals and two “permanently resident non-citizens” of Latvia (“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 25 June 2024, Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date: INTRODUCTION 1.     The case concerns amendments to the domestic law adopted in 2018 (“the 2018 amendments” or “the 2018 reform”) whereby the use of the State language, that is, Latvian, was increased in all pre-schools and the use of Russian was consequently reduced. The applicants relied on Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 8 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 13-16 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). 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), 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 (ibid., §§   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 (ibid., §§   13-20). 9 .     According to the applicants, the education reform prior to 2018 did not establish any specific requirements in relation to the language to be used in pre-schools. While a bilingual approach had to be used at pre-school for pupils aged five and over, there were no specific requirements for pre-school programmes in Latvian or in minority languages. The applicants agreed with the Government that children aged two to five should have Latvian lessons at least twice a week, and children aged five and over should have Latvian lessons every day (see paragraph 10 below). However, they submitted that the language requirements laid down in Regulation no. 533   (2012) were not mandatory for private educational institutions. 10 .     According to the Government, from 18 April 2012 onwards the Education Law provided that the Cabinet of Ministers set the guidelines for State pre-school education. Those guidelines included models and templates for pre-school education. From 17 August 2012 until 1 September 2019 that issue was regulated by Regulation no. 533   (2012) entitled “Regulation on State pre-school education guidelines”. Specific models and templates outlining requirements in pre-school education programmes were annexed to that Regulation (Annex 2 contained the model for the general pre-school education programme for minorities, and Annex 4 contained the model for the special pre-school education programmes for minorities). In accordance with those programmes, both languages – the minority language and Latvian – had to be developed. A bilingual approach was recommended for the learning of Latvian. Play-based lessons whereby children aged two to five could learn Latvian had to take place at least twice a week, but children aged five and over had to have such lessons every day. At the same time, the learning of Latvian through play-based lessons and in day-to-day communication had to take place on a daily basis throughout a child’s pre ‑ school education, whilst a supportive environment was ensured and a variety of learning methods were implemented. 11 .     On 21 November 2018 the Cabinet of Ministers adopted a new regulation (Regulation no. 716 (2018) entitled “Regulation on State guidelines for pre-school education and model pre-school education programmes”). It provided that as of 1   September 2019 the learning of Latvian had to be facilitated throughout a child’s pre-school education in an integrated learning process, by using a bilingual approach adapted to children’s development and by using Latvian in day-to-day communication. For children aged five and over, the main language of communication in play ‑ based lessons had to be Latvian, except for in targeted activities organised to help children master the minority language and ethnic culture. Those requirements applied to general pre-school education programmes for minorities and special pre-school education programmes for minorities (see paragraph 54 below). 12 .     Further 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 Djeri and Others (application no.   50942/20) 13 .     The first applicant is the mother of the second applicant. They were born in Latvia and consider themselves ethnic Russians. They are Latvian citizens. Russian is the main language used within the family. 14.     The third applicant is the mother of the fourth applicant. They were born in Latvia and consider themselves ethnic Russians. The third applicant is a “permanently resident non-citizen” of Latvia, while the fourth applicant is a Latvian citizen. Russian is the main language used within the family. 15.     The fifth applicant is the mother of the sixth and seventh applicants. They were born in Latvia and consider themselves ethnic Russians. They are Latvian citizens. Russian is the main language used within the family. Gomajunova and Livdāne (application no.   2022/21) 16 .     The eighth applicant is the mother of the ninth applicant. They were born in Latvia and consider themselves ethnic Russians. The eighth applicant is a “permanently resident non-citizen” of Latvia, while the ninth applicant is a Latvian citizen. Russian is the main language used within the family. Education pursued by the applicant children Djeri and Others (application no.   50942/20) 17 .     In the 2018/19 and 2019/20 school years – at the age of three and four – the second applicant was at a public pre-school in Jūrmala. In the 2020/21 and 2021/22 school years – at the age of five and six – she was in a preparatory group ( pirmsskolas grupa ) in the same school; from the age of five she received an education there in accordance with the special minority pre-school education programme for children with speech impairments ( speciālā mazākumtautību izglītības pirmsskolas izglītības programma izglītojamajiem ar valodas traucējumiem ). No further details have been provided as to the nature of the second applicant’s language impairment. Since 1 September 2022 she has been in class one at a public school. 18.     The applicants indicated that the first applicant’s son (born in 2012), who is not an applicant in the present case, had also received an education in accordance with the special pre-school education programme. Subsequently, he had pursued an education in accordance with the general primary education programme for minorities. 19.     In the 2016/17, 2017/18 and 2018/19 school years – at the age of two, three and four – the fourth applicant was in a public pre-school in Riga. In the 2019/20 and 2020/21 school years – at the age of five and six – he was in the same pre-school. He received an education in accordance with the general pre-school education programme for minorities ( vispārējā mazākumtautību pirmsskolas izglītības programma ). In the 2021/22 and 2022/2023 school years he was in class one and two at a public school. 20 .     In the 2019/20 and 2020/21 school years – at the age of three and four – the sixth applicant was in another public pre-school in Riga. In the 2021/22 and 2022/23 school years – at the age of five and sixth – she was in the same public pre-school. She received an education in accordance with the general pre-school education programme for minorities. 21 .     At the time the application was lodged the seventh applicant (born in 2020) was not at pre-school. A request had been made to register her at another public pre-school in Riga from 1 September 2021, but not all children who had been registered could obtain a place. There is no precise information as to when the seventh applicant started attending pre-school, but it appears that in the 2022/23 and 2023/24 school years – at the age of two and three – she was at the same pre-school as her sister and received an education in accordance with the general pre-school education programme for minorities. Gomajunova and Livdāne (application no.   2022/21) 22 .     In the 2020/21, 2021/22 and 2022/23 school years – at the age of two, three and four – the ninth applicant was at a private pre-school in Riga. She received an education in accordance with the general pre-school education programme for minorities. There is no precise information in that regard, but it appears that in the 2023/24 school year – at the age of five – she was at the same pre-school. Review by the Constitutional Court Application to the Constitutional Court 23 .     The domestic legislation concerning the use of Latvian in all pre ‑ schools (certain provisions contained in Regulation   no. 716 (2018) – paragraph   9 of Annex no. 2 and paragraph 9 of Annex no. 4, “the impugned provisions”, see paragraph 54 below) was reviewed by the Constitutional Court ( Satversmes tiesa ) in proceedings brought by the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants and by eight other individuals who were either children enrolled in or attending public or private pre-schools or the parents of those children (case no. 2019-20-03). 24 .     Initially, an application lodged solely by parents was refused on the basis that there had been a failure to provide proper legal reasoning. However, upon receiving a newly formulated application, on 25   September 2019 the Constitutional Court instituted proceedings in relation to children and their parents as concerns the compatibility of the impugned provisions with Article   64 of the Constitution ( Satversme ) (the legislative power), Article 91 (the equal treatment and non-discrimination principles), the first sentence of Article 112 (the right to education) and Article 114 (the rights of minorities). The Constitutional Court refused to institute proceedings as concerns the compatibility of the impugned provisions with Article   110 of the Constitution (the right to family life), on the basis that there had been a failure to provide legal reasoning as to whether Article   110 enshrined any additional rights in the field of education. While the applicants in those proceedings had referred to the principle of good governance arising under Article   1 of the Constitution, they had failed to provide legal reasoning as to how their fundamental rights had been affected in that regard. Thus, the Constitutional Court held that the applicants 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 or her 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 50 below). In their application to the Constitutional Court, the applicants did not ask the court to examine the compatibility of the impugned provisions with the right to private life. The Constitutional Court’s judgment 25 .     On 19 June 2020 the Constitutional Court issued its judgment. It examined the compatibility of the impugned provisions with the first sentence of Article 112 of the Constitution (the right to education), Article 114 (the rights of minorities), Article 64 (the legislative power), and Article 91 (the equal treatment and non-discrimination principles). (a)    General observations as regards the right to education (i)       Two stages of pre-school education in Latvia 26 .     At the outset the Constitutional Court examined the Government’s argument that the applicants’ right to education had not been affected and that the proceedings should be terminated. The court reiterated that the right to education, by its very nature, called for regulation by the State, and that it might vary in time and place according to the needs and resources of society (they referred to Case “relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium” (merits) (23 July 1968, p. 32, § 5, Series A no. 6 – the “ Belgian linguistic case ”, among other authorities). It followed that the State had a certain margin of appreciation in establishing an education system. Taking into account the needs and resources of society at its particular stage of development, Article   112 of the Constitution enshrined an obligation to respect, protect and ensure the right to education. Taking into account the evolving nature of understanding the development needs of a child, the legislature, under Article 112 of the Constitution, had a margin of appreciation when regulating access to the education system from a young age. Referring to international material (the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (“the Framework Convention”), see also General Comment no. 7 (2005) quoted in paragraph 63 below), the Constitutional Court held that in relation to pre-school education, the practice of international human rights bodies did not specify a particular age from which a child should enjoy the right to education. It had been recognised, however, that a child had the right to education from a young age. The ways in which that right could be exercised varied depending on the capability of the State and the traditions and values of the particular society. 27 .     As to the Latvian education system, the Constitutional Court noted that children had access to a pre-school educational institution from the age of one and a half, but pre-school education from that age was not compulsory. Parents could choose to use the services provided by pre-school educational institutions. Pre-school education was compulsory from the age of five, as children had to be prepared for primary education. Thus, the Constitutional Court held that the State, in fulfilling its obligation to support parents, had established a pre-school education level – the first level in the education system. In Latvia, the pre-school education level was divided into two stages. 28 .     The Constitutional Court noted that the first stage of pre-school education was for young children, namely those aged one and a half to five. Parents played a primary role in pre-school education at that stage, and such an approach was in line with international standards. At that stage, parents could choose to ensure a child’s education and development within a family or some other close network, or by additionally and partially entrusting their duties to a pre-school educational institution, its teachers and staff. By creating a stage of pre-school education which a child could enter from the age of one and a half, the State had created a support mechanism for parents to ensure their children’s education and development. It followed that the first stage of pre-school education (for children aged one and a half to five) could not be viewed in isolation from the general education system; it formed an integral part of the general education system. The second stage of pre-school education was compulsory for children aged five to seven. The aim of that stage was to prepare a child for primary education. 29 .     The Constitutional Court concluded that the right to education as enshrined in the first sentence of Article 112 of the Constitution included both stages of pre-school education in Latvia. (ii)     Scope of protected rights 30 .     The applicants argued that the impugned provisions restricted the right to receive a quality education in their mother tongue, as well as the right of parents to participate in the educational process. The Constitutional Court concluded that the first sentence of Article 112 of the Constitution comprised the applicants’ right to expect that the system of education established by the State would be available, accessible, acceptable and adaptable. At the same time, the Constitutional Court stated that this Article did not include the right to an education in a language of one’s choice. Therefore, the Constitutional Court examined the applicants’ arguments in so far as they pertained to the right to receive an education which was compatible with the objectives of education, that is, a quality education. In that regard, the applicants argued (i) that the changes provided for by the impugned provisions would decrease the quality of education; (ii) that the State had not provided sufficient training and retraining opportunities for teachers; and (iii) that the right of parents to participate in the educational process had not been respected. In that regard, the Constitutional Court had to assess whether the State had complied with its obligations as regards making education available, accessible, acceptable and adaptable (it referred to its ruling in case no. 2018-12-01, see Valiullina and Others , cited above, § 46). The first sentence of Article 112 of the Constitution included the applicants’ right to request that the State comply with its obligations in that regard. Consequently, the Constitutional Court did not terminate the proceedings and examined the applicants’ submissions in that regard. (b)    Article 112 of the Constitution (i)       Positive obligations 31 .     In relation to the substance of the right to education, the Constitutional Court held that the case concerned the State’s positive obligations and not the alleged interference with the applicants’ rights. It proceeded to examine their arguments in that regard (see paragraph 30 above). (ii)     Quality of pre-school education 32 .     The Constitutional Court noted that the impugned provisions provided that throughout a child’s pre-school education, that is, from the age of one and a half to seven, the learning of Latvian was facilitated by an integrated education process, using a bilingual approach. However, as regards the pre ‑ school education stage for children aged five to seven, the main language of communication in play-based lessons was Latvian (see paragraph 54 below). As the applicants had doubted the true meaning of the second sentence of the impugned provisions – which was an exception to the general rule – the Constitutional Court went on to clarify the meaning and purpose of the impugned provisions in so far as they applied to children aged five to seven. The Constitutional Court examined the drafting history of the impugned provisions and other provisions adopted in the context of the education reform. One of the aims of the relevant Amendments to the General Education Law of 21 June 2018 (see paragraph 52 below) was to introduce a competency-based approach to the curriculum at all levels of education. Those amendments had to be viewed together with the relevant Amendments to the Education Law of 22 March 2018 (see section 9(2)(2) of the Education Law as regards pre-school education, quoted in Valiullina and Others , cited above, § 59), which indicated that one of the stages of the education reform was the transformation of minority education programmes and the reform of the curriculum, in relation to pre-school education as well. However, the Constitutional Court noted that those changes did not mean that bilingual education had been abandoned (they referred to views expressed at parliamentary debates indicating that those amendments had been aimed at ensuring that all pupils had equal chances, that the bilingual education model had to be improved to keep up with the times, and that the bilingual education model had been maintained at pre-school level). The Constitutional Court concluded that those amendments had been made within the framework of the reform of the general education curriculum, and a competency-based curriculum had been created and implemented following that reform; the acquisition and use of the State language had been one of the main features of that curriculum. In order to implement a competency-based curriculum at pre-school level, the Cabinet of Ministers had adopted new pre-school education guidelines (Regulation no. 716   (2018)); they had been in effect as of 1   September 2019 (see paragraphs 53-54 below). Regulation no.   716   (2018) had ensured the transition from an unclear and fragmented education model in the previously applicable regulation (Regulation no.   533   (2012)) to a model in which the curriculum was implemented in a unified process. Namely, to provide competency-based education, a model had been introduced within which all areas of education, including languages, were taught systematically and in an integrated manner as part of the overall curriculum. In accordance with the second sentence of the impugned provisions, the main language of communication in play-based lessons for children aged five and over had to be Latvian. The Constitutional Court also emphasised that for children aged five to seven, teaching became more intensive, since it was at that age that they were being prepared for primary education. In line with a pre-school education programme developed by the National Centre for Education, in the area of languages, for example, one of the aims of the education programme for minorities was that a child would be able to ask and reply to short, simple questions about daily life in the State language. However, that did not mean that the requirement to use Latvian as the main language of communication in play-based lessons could be viewed in isolation from the rest of the legal framework, especially the general rule that a bilingual approach had to be used throughout pre-school. The Constitutional Court concluded that the second sentence of the impugned provisions aimed to establish new content for play-based lessons that corresponded to the common aims of the education reform. By strengthening the role of play ‑ based lessons in Latvian, the accessibility and acceptability of education was ensured, since every child was prepared for the next level of education. The applicants had alleged that teachers could not use a bilingual approach in respect of children aged five to seven, and the Constitutional Court found that allegation unsubstantiated. The Constitutional Court further emphasised that pre-school education had to ensure that every child, by the time he or she completed pre-school and started primary school, was able to acquire the content of the curriculum in the State language to the extent required by law for that level of education. This approach was in line with the findings of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child that high-quality, developmentally appropriate and culturally inclusive education programmes had a positive impact on young children’s successful transition to primary school (see paragraph 63 below). The competency-based education introduced by the impugned provisions and the use of the bilingual approach also ensured that education was accessible and acceptable to children belonging to a minority. As regards pre-school education, the option of using two or more languages had been preserved not only for children aged one and a half to five, but also children aged five to seven. The Constitutional Court then ascertained whether there was a mechanism by which changes in the quality of education could be determined; such changes had to be actively monitored (they referred to the judgment in case no.   2004-18-0106, summarised in Valiullina and Others , cited above, §   71). It found that the State had established a mechanism for monitoring the quality of education. (iii)    Training for teachers 33.     As regards training for teachers, the Constitutional Court noted that since 1996 the Latvian Language Agency had offered free courses designed for teachers in minority schools and pre-schools who wished to improve their Latvian language skills. Since 1999 teachers had been required to have the highest degree of proficiency in the State language, and since 2013 that requirement had also applied to pre-school teaching assistants. Courses offered by the Latvian Language Agency had been further improved since 2015, and since 2018 a project entitled “A competency-based approach to the curriculum” had been in place, offering complex support measures for teachers – improving their Latvian language skills and professional ability to work in a linguistically heterogenous environment (see also Valiullina and Others , cited above, § 79). Measures to promote and increase the professional skills of teachers had been organised by the State in line with its budgetary resources, and also by involving municipal authorities. Thus, teachers had been provided with the necessary support measures. Whether they used the opportunities offered to them was a matter for them, bearing in mind that they had to meet certain requirements and be able to fulfil the task entrusted to them, namely educating children. Moreover, university education programmes for pre-school teachers had been adapted to meet the requirements of Regulation no.   716 (2018); a new study course called “Bilingualism and the basis of bilingual education” had also been designed. Practical traineeships were closely connected to the requirements of Regulation no. 716 (2018). Hence, the Constitutional Court concluded that the State had ensured an acceptable standard of education in that regard. There was no indication that the impugned provisions had led to a decrease in the quality of education in so far as its adaptability to the needs of children was concerned. However, 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 educational process to detect possible changes in the quality of education (it referred to the judgment in a case concerning private schools, see Džibuti and Others v.   Latvia , nos. 225/20 and 2 others, § 37, 16 November 2023). (iv)   Right of parents to participate in the educational process 34 .     As to the right of parents to participate in the educational process, the Constitutional Court observed that the Education Law provided that both the public and parents could participate in that process. The public participated in the organisation and development of education by popularising all types of education, providing education and improving the quality of education, creating education programmes, protecting the rights and interests of pupils and teachers in the process of learning and teaching, and establishing educational and educational support institutions, associations and foundations (section 21(1) of the Education Law). Parents pursued their interests by participating in the work of councils attached to educational institutions, where parent representatives formed a majority; councils were authorised to submit proposals regarding the implementation of education programmes (section 31 of the Education Law). The Constitutional Court held that the impugned provisions ensured the applicants’ right to participate in the pre-school educational process. It also concluded that, when adopting the impugned provisions, the State had complied with the requirements of accessibility, adaptability and acceptability (availability was not contested). Given that Article 112 of the Constitution included an obligation to provide a unified education system in the State language, the Constitutional Court held that the right to receive an education in the State language was being ensured in minority pre-school educational institutions through the use of a bilingual approach in the study process. To ensure that right, the State had set appropriate pre-school education content which was compulsory. The Constitutional Court declared that the impugned provisions were compatible with the first sentence of Article 112 of the Constitution. (c)    Article 114 of the Constitution 35 .     As regards Article 114 of the Constitution, the applicants argued before the Constitutional Court that the impugned provisions restricted their right to learn and use Russian – their mother tongue – freely and without interference, and the right of children and parents to preserve their Russian ethnic, cultural and linguistic identity. At the same time, they admitted that pre-school education for children aged one and a half to five was based on a balanced bilingual approach, whose aim was to develop a child’s Russian and Latvian language skills in various fields of study equally. The applicants alleged that the right to use Russian was restricted in the second stage of pre ‑ school education for children aged five to seven, especially in day-to-day communication in a pre-school educational institution. Referring to its earlier case-law (the judgment in case no.   2004-18-0106, summarised in Valiullina and Others , cited above, § 70), the Constitutional Court held that Article 114 of the Constitution required positive action from the State to protect and ensure the right of minorities to preserve and develop their language and ethnic and cultural uniqueness; it examined the applicants’ arguments from the standpoint of the positive obligations contained in Article 114 of the Constitution. 36 .     The Constitutional Court reiterated that the impugned provisions provided for a bilingual approach in education as regards the first stage of pre-school education for children aged one and half to five, in that the provisions provided for the use of both the State language and a minority language in every area of education. Moreover, the Constitutional Court noted that the applicants in that case had not expressed any objections about this stage of pre-school education. Therefore, there was no dispute that the rights enshrined in Article   114 of the Constitution were being ensured as regards the first stage of pre-school education. The Constitutional Court then proceeded to examine the impugned provisions in so far as they related to the second stage of pre-school education for children aged five to seven. It reiterated that the use of a minority language in the educational process had to ensure not only the formal acquisition of that language, but also the development of the identity of a person belonging to that 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 (they referred to the judgment in a case concerning private schools, summarised in Džibuti and Others , cited above, §   38). That said, the Constitutional Court held that when regulating the use of a language of instruction in pre-school educational institutions, the legislature had ensured the right of pupils belonging to the Russian minority to safeguard and develop their identity and culture. In accordance with the impugned provisions and other related provisions, pupils who belonged to the Russian minority could use Russian at the second stage of pre-school education when they were aged five to seven. Even though there was a different approach towards that stage of pre-school education, in that the education programme did not expressly provide for a bilingual approach, it nevertheless ensured that pupils who belonged to the Russian minority could learn Russian and learn about Russian culture. In accordance with the relevant provisions of Regulation no.   716, the implementation of the compulsory curriculum had to be planned and organised to include various events, such as those related to public holidays, annual customs, traditions and the acquisition of ethnic culture, in order to achieve the intended results of the compulsory curriculum. The Constitutional Court affirmed that the organisation of various events was also related to the above-mentioned planned learning outcomes relating to the acquisition of skills in minority music (folk songs), visual arts (illustrations by Russian artists for Russian folk tales), literature (Russian folk tales, short poems), and drama (the staging of fairy tales). In addition, the second sentence of the impugned provisions expressly provided that the main language of communication in play-based lessons was Latvian, with the exception of activities which had been organised to facilitate the acquisition of a minority language and learning about ethnic culture. That exception gave minority pre-school educational institutions a discretion as regards annual festivities or the preservation of traditions, for instance. In the instant case, for example, children could prepare for a holiday and celebrate Maslenitsa, Easter, the Day of Slavic Writing and Culture, and the Feast of Alphabet in Russian, and thus learn about and maintain Russian culture. Moreover, it also had to be taken into consideration that the concept of education also included educational activities outside the education system established by the State, such as minority Sunday schools or summer camps. This was in line