CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 15 mars 2021

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .sFF075836 { margin-right:7.05pt; margin-left:7.05pt; border-collapse:collapse; } .sEB77756B { height:55.05pt } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .s6DFC9880 { height:193.3pt } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .sA82756B { height:54.65pt } .sEBBD756B { height:55.65pt } .s2B35EF65 { height:165.15pt } .s77EA98BE { height:175.3pt } .sF81E884 { height:88.35pt } .s9252AC04 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } Published on 6 April 2021   FIFTH SECTION Application no. 56928/19 Dina VALIULLINA and Others against Latvia and 7 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 15 March 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the latest stage in the education reform in Latvia whereby – following a number of amendments to the relevant laws and regulations in 2018 (such as amendments to the Education Law, the General Education Law, and Regulation no.   716 issued by the Cabinet of Ministers, “the 2018 amendments”) – the use of minority languages as languages of instruction in public and private pre-schools, primary and secondary schools has been reduced. The applicants are parents and children who identify themselves as belonging to the Russian-speaking minority in Latvia. The children have attended, are currently attending or will attend public or private pre-schools, primary or secondary schools and have been affected by the 2018 amendments. The Constitutional Court in its judgments of 23 April 2019 (as regards public schools), 13 November 2019 (as regards private schools), and 19   June 2020 (as regards pre-schools) held that the 2018 amendments were compatible with the right to education, the rights of minorities and the prohibition of discrimination as enshrined in the Latvian Constitution. The applicants complain under Article 2 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention taken alone and in conjunction with Article   14 of the Convention that as a result of the 2018 amendments their right to education has been affected and that they have suffered discrimination on various grounds. Some applicants submit that Article 2 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention should be read in the light of Article 8 of the Convention but do not raise a separate complaint under that Article, while other applicants also complain under Article   8 taken alone and in conjunction with Article   14 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES AS REGARDS ALL APPLICATIONS 1.     Have the applicants exhausted all domestic remedies in respect of their complaints as required by Article   35   §   1 of the Convention?   2.     Has there been an interference with the applicants’ right to respect for their private and/or family life within the meaning of Article   8   §   1 of the Convention?   3.     Does Article   2 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention provide for a right to use and receive education in a language other than the State language in the circumstances of the present cases?   4.     Does Article   2 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention taken alone or in conjunction with Article   14 of the Convention provide for a right to continue pursuing education in a language other than the State language in the circumstances when education in that language had been previously available?   5.     Have the applicants been denied the right to education, guaranteed by Article   2 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention? In particular, did the restrictions on the use of the Russian language following the 2018 amendments impair the very essence of the applicants’ right to education or its effectiveness? Were those restrictions: (a)     Prescribed by law and foreseeable for the applicants? (b)     Pursuing a legitimate aim? (c)     Proportionate to the aim pursued? Did the State sufficiently balance the various interests at stake? What is the scope of the State’s margin of appreciation in the field of regulation of educational institutions at every level of the education system (pre-schools, primary and secondary schools)?   6.     The parties are invited to provide further factual information on the education (methodology, study materials, textbooks, and training for teachers) provided in those pre-schools, primary and secondary schools which were affected by the 2018 amendments. ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AS REGARDS APPLICATIONS CONCERNING PUBLIC SCHOOLS (nos.   56928/19, 7306/20   and   11937/20) 7.     Have the applicants suffered discrimination on the ground of “language” and/or “association with a national minority” and/or “other status”, contrary to Article   14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article   8   §   1 of the Convention and/or Article 2 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention?   7.1.     In particular, have the applicants been subjected to a difference in treatment in comparison with children whose mother tongue is Latvian?   7.2.     If the answer is in the affirmative, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim; and did it have a reasonable justification?   ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AS REGARDS APPLICATIONS CONCERNING PRIVATE SCHOOLS (nos.   225/20, 11642/20 and   21815/20)   8.     Have the applicants suffered discrimination on the ground of “language “and/or “association with a national minority” and/or “other status”, contrary to Article   14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article   8 §   1 of the Convention and/or Article   2 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention?   8.1.     In particular, have the applicants been subjected to a difference in treatment in comparison with: (a)     Children whose mother tongue is Latvian? (b)     Children whose mother tongue is one of the official languages of the European Union? (c)     Children whose mother tongue is of a country with which Latvia has concluded a bilateral or multilateral agreement in the field of education?   8.2.     If the answer is in the affirmative, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim; and did it have a reasonable justification?   ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AS REGARDS APPLICATIONS CONCERNING PRE-SCHOOLS (nos.   50942/20 and 2022/21)   9.     Does Article   2 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention apply to such educational institutions as pre-schools? The parties are invited to address separately the following age groups – from 1.5 to 5 years of age and from   5 to 7 years of age. From what age is the education compulsory in Latvia?   10.     Have the applicants suffered discrimination on the ground of “language” and/or “association with a national minority” and/or “other status”, contrary to Article   14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article   8   §   1 of the Convention and/or Article   2 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention?   10.1.     In particular, have the applicants been subjected to a difference in treatment in comparison with children whose mother tongue is Latvian?   10.2.     If the answer is in the affirmative, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim; and did it have a reasonable justification?   11.     As regards application no.   50942/20, have the applicants, who claim to have various impairments, suffered discrimination on the ground of “other status” contrary to Article   14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article   8   §   1 of the Convention and/or Article   2 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention in comparison with other children who identify themselves with the Russian-speaking minority? If the answer is in the affirmative, did that difference in treatment pursue a legitimate aim; and did it have a reasonable justification? APPENDIX   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by School 1. 56928/19 Valiullina and Truši v. Latvia 22/01/2019 Dina VALIULLINA 1975 Rīga Latvian Timurs TRUŠS 2009 Rīga Latvian Milana TRUŠA 2009 Rīga Latvian Jeļizaveta TRUŠA 2009 Rīga Latvian   PUBLIC 2. 225/20 Džibuti v. Latvia 11/12/2019 Tengizs DŽIBUTI 1981 Rīga Latvian Davids DŽIBUTI 2007 Rīga Latvian Dana DŽIBUTI 2010 Rīga Latvian Inese NIKUĻCEVA (lawyer) PRIVATE 3. 7306/20 Neronovas v. Latvia 28/01/2020 Natālija NERONOVA 1976 Rīga Latvian   Ksenija NERONOVA 2006 Rīga Latvian Oļesja NERONOVA 2010 Rīga Latvian   PUBLIC 4. 11642/20 Boroduļa v. Latvia 24/02/2020 Deniss BORODUĻA 1981 Riga Latvian   PRIVATE 5. 11937/20 Raizere-Rubcova and Others v. Latvia 13/02/2020 Diāna RAIZERE-RUBCOVA 1980 Riga Latvian Sofija RUBCOVA 2008 Riga Latvian Jeļisaveta RUBCOVA 2012 Riga Latvian   PUBLIC 6. 21815/20 Ševšeļova v. Latvia 13/05/2020 Gaļina ŠEVŠEĻOVA 1970 Jurmala Latvian   PRIVATE 7. 50942/20 Djeri and Others v. Latvia 04/11/2020 Inna DJERI 1978 Jūrmala Latvian Jūlija SOHINA 1977 Rīga Latvian Jelena DJERI 2015 Jurmala Latvian Alona GRIGORJEVA KULINOKA 1990 Riga Latvian Alisa KULINOKA 2016 Riga Latvian Marianna KULINOKA 2020 Riga Latvian Ratmirs ČUBAROVS 2014 Riga Latvian Vladimirs BUZAJEVS (not lawyer) PRE ‑ SCHOOL 8. 2022/21 Gomajunova and Livdāne v. Latvia 18/12/2020 Jelena GOMAJUNOVA 1976 Riga Latvian Anna LIVDĀNE 2018 Riga Latvian   PRE ‑ SCHOOL