CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 22 novembre 2001

.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 } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .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 36 November 2001 Skender v. "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" (partial decision) - 62059/00 Decision 22.11.2001 [Section III] Article 14 Discrimination Impossibility of sending children to school in another district where education in the minority language is provided: admissible The applicant is a national of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, of Turkish origin. He has two daughters whom he wished to send to a Turkish-speaking school situated in a other district than the one where they lived, as the school of their own district did not provide teaching in Turkish. According to the Primary Education Act, pupils should attend the State primary school of their place of residence. In February 1997 the applicant asked the Turkish-speaking school to admit his elder daughter. He received no answer and complained, allegedly on two successive occasions, to the competent authority. He started proceedings before the Supreme Court. The school, at this stage, refused to enrol his elder daughter, as they did not live in the district of the school. The Supreme Court refused, on procedural grounds, to examine the applicant’s complaint in respect of the school’s refusal. The Constitutional Court did not quash the Supreme Court’s decision. The Supreme Court refused to examine the applicant’s request for having the proceedings reopened as the applicant had not provided fresh evidence as required by law. As regards the applicant’s younger daughter, he unsuccessfully requested the school to admit her in August 1998. The Supreme Court refused, on procedural grounds, to examine his complaint about the decision of the school. His subsequent appeal against the refusal of the school was dismissed by the second instance body, which informed him that he should enrol his daughter in the school of his place of residence. The Supreme Court subsequently dismissed his administrative complaint on the same ground. The court also relied on decision of the Constitutional Court annulling decisions of the Government whereby education should be provided in Turkish in the district where the applicant lived. Inadmissible under Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 as regards the applicant’s elder daughter: the applicant failed to make proper use of the opportunities to challenge the refusal of the school to enrol his elder daughter or to complain to the Constitutional Court that his elder daughter was discriminated against. Admissible under Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 as regards the applicant’s younger daughter.   © 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