CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 14 février 2006

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 83 February 2006 Folgerø and Others v. Norway (dec.) - 15472/02 Decision 14.2.2006 [Section I] Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 Respect for parents' religious convictions Refusal to exempt children of non-Christian parents from a compulsory subject focusing on the teaching of Christianity: admissible   The applicants are parents who are members of the Norwegian Humanist Association and their children, who were primary school pupils at the time of the events complained of, respectively. Their complaint is related to the legislative reform introduced in school curricula as from 1997, when the subject of Christianity, Other Religions and Philosophy started being taught. The emphasis of the subject was placed on the teaching of Christianity, so pupils who adhered to other religions or life stances could be exempted from parts of the teaching on the submission of a parental note. Pursuant to a ministerial circular, such notes were to contain parents' reasons of what they considered amounted to practicing another religion or adherence to another life stance. Prior to the reform it was possible for children to be exempted in whole from the teaching of the Christian faith. The applicants brought proceedings in the domestic courts following the administrative refusals for the full exemption of their children from the subject. Their action was rejected at three domestic judicial levels. The Supreme Court found that the provision on exemption was not contrary to any requirements pertaining to religious freedom and parental rights. Moreover, the teaching did not present one faith as being superior to others. Two evaluation reports on the new system in 2000 concluded that the arrangement of partial exemption did not work as intended and should be thoroughly reviewed. The applicants complain that the refusal of the domestic authorities to grant a full exemption violated their rights under Article 9 of the Convention and Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (as well as Articles 8 and 14). In October 2004, the Court declared the application inadmissible in respect of the children as well as the parents' complaints about the possibilities and modalities for obtaining a partial exemption. Another group of parents, who had also been parties to the domestic proceedings, subsequently lodged, together with their children, a communication with the United Nations Human Rights Committee under the Protocol to the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Admissible under Article 9 and Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (concerning the parents' complaint about the lack of possibility of obtaining full exemption) and Article 14, taken in conjunction with Articles 8, 9 and Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (concerning the parents' complaint of discrimination). Moreover, the application could not be declared inadmissible under Article 35(2). Although certain parents who had been parties to the domestic proceedings had lodged a petition before the United Nations Human Rights Committee, they were not the same ones that had lodged an application before the Court. Hence, as the complainants before the two institutions were not identical, the “application” to the Court could not be considered as being “substantially the same as a matter submitted to another procedure”.   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes