CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 13 février 2003

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .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 } .s65B66A85 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; 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 50 February 2003 Grisankova and Grisankovs v. Latvia (dec.) - 36117/02 Decision 13.2.2003 [Section I] Article 35 Article 35-1 Exhaustion of domestic remedies Effective domestic remedy Effectiveness of constitutional complaint in relation to alleged violation by a domestic law of a Convention right also guaranteed by the Constitution The applicants, Latvian nationals of Russian origin, complained that the Latvian Education Act made Latvian the only language of instruction used in public schools. They relied before the Court on the right to education as guaranteed by Article 2 of Protocol No 1 to the Convention. Inadmissible : Where an applicant called in question a provision of legislation or a regulation as being contrary, as such, to the Convention, and the right invoked was among those guaranteed by the Latvian Constitution, it was imperative that, in principle, proceedings be brought before the Latvian Constitutional Court before the European Court of Human Rights, since in such a situation an application before the Latvian Constitutional Court afforded a possible remedy to the situation complained of. In this case, the right to education was among the fundamental rights protected by the Latvian Constitution and the applicants had not challenged the constitutionality of the contested provisions of the Education Act by way of an individual application to the Constitutional Court. Moreover they had not provided any ground likely to cast doubt on the effectiveness of this procedure: non-exhaustion.   © 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