CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 25 mars 1993

.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 } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s85F2E5C5 { width:30.44pt; display:inline-block } .sBDAE81C4 { width:27.67pt; display:inline-block } .sC7C396CD { width:24.89pt; display:inline-block } .sE4E38D5F { width:23.77pt; display:inline-block } .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 No. March 1993 Costello-Roberts v. the United Kingdom - 13134/87 Judgment 25.3.1993 Article 3 Degrading punishment Corporal punishment in independent school: no violation [This summary is extracted from the Court’s official reports (Series A or Reports of Judgments and Decisions). Its formatting and structure may therefore differ from the Case-Law Information Note summaries.] I.   RESPONSIBILITY OF RESPONDENT STATE A school's disciplinary system falls within ambit of right to education which the State is obliged to secure to children under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1.   The fundamental right of everyone to education is a right guaranteed equally to pupils in State and independent schools.   The State cannot absolve itself from responsibility by delegating its obligations to private bodies or individuals. Accordingly, in particular domain of school discipline, State responsibility engaged if treatment complained of incompatible with Article 3, 8 or both. II.   ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION Corporal punishment inflicted on applicant did not constitute "degrading punishment" in all the circumstances of the case as not reached the required minimum threshold of severity.    Conclusion : no violation (five votes to four). III.   ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION Notion of "private life" a broad one, not susceptible to exhaustive definition - not every act or measure adversely affecting physical or moral integrity of person necessarily gives rise to an interference with right to respect for private life. Article 3, first point of reference for examining a case concerning disciplinary measures in a school - possibility not excluded that there might be circumstances in which greater protection may be afforded by Article 8, however, in circumstances of this case, adverse effects insufficient to bring within its scope. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously). IV.   ARTICLE 13 OF THE CONVENTION Remedy was available in respect of the grievances under Articles   3 and 8 which were "arguable" in terms of Convention - would have been open to applicant to institute civil proceedings for assault - its effectiveness not dependent on certainty of a favourable outcome. Remedy allowing a Contracting State's laws as such to be challenged before a national authority not guaranteed by Article 13. Conclusion : no violation (unanimously).   © 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