Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19771215-774376-774376
Timestamp: 2017-04-27 11:25:44+00:00

Document:
Page d'accueil > Résultats de la recherche COSANS, COSANS c. ROYAUME-UNI
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Partiellement irrecevable ; partiellement recevableNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 7743/76;7743/76Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1977-12-15;7743.76 Analyses : (Art. 14) DISCRIMINATION, (Art. 9-1) LIBERTE DE RELIGIONParties : Demandeurs : COSANS, COSANSDéfendeurs : ROYAUME-UNITexte : APPLICATION/REQUÃTE NÂ° 7743/76 J .Y . COSANS, on behalf of her son, Jeffrey Steven COSANS v/UNITED KINGDO M JY . COSANS, agissant au nom de son fils Jeffrey Steven COSANS' c/ROYAUME-UN I DECISION of 15 December 1977 on the admissibility of the application DÃCISION du 15 dÃ©cembre 1977 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªt e
Artic%s 3 and 25 of the Convention : Can a child claim to be a victirrr of a violation of Article 3 if he risks being subjected to corporal punishment at his school whilst such corporal punishment have not in fact been inflicted on him ?(Question reserved for examinancn on the merits of the case) . Article 26 of the Convention : In the case in point, a complaint directed against acts which are neither conrrary to the law nor practice, does not constitute an effective remedy IUnited Kingdom) . Article 2 of the First Protocol : Conffict between a practice of using corporal punishment as a method of school discipline, and philosophical convictions of the parents . Competence ratione personae : A state which provides for compulsory education and creates public schools ts accountable for the acts of the teachers who administer corporal punishment in accordance with school pracuce.
Articles 3 et 25 de la Convention : Un enfant peut-il se prÃ©tendie victime d'une violation de lÃ¢nicle 3%rsqu'il rfsque, dans l'Ã©cole qu'il frÃ©quente, d'Ãªtre soumis Ã des punitions corporelles, alors mÃªme que de telles punitions ne lui ont pas Ã©tÃ© infligÃ©es en fait ? (Renvoi Ã l'exanten du fond de l'affaire . I
Th e applicant is reprasanted before the Commission by Mesvs . Stirling, Eunson and Farpuson . solicitors . Dunf6rmline . La reouÃ©rente Â°n reprÃ©santÃ©e devant la Cornmission par MM . Stidinp . Eunson et Ferpuson, solicitors A Dunlermline .
Article 26 de la Convention : Ne constitue pas, en l'espÃ©ce, un recou rs efficace une plainte dirigÃ©e conrre des actes non contraires Ã© la loi ni aux usages IRoyaume-Unil . Article 2 du Protocole additionnel : Conflit entre l'usage de punitions corporelles, en tant que mÃ©thode de discipline scolaire, et les convictions philosophiques des parents. CompÃ©tence ratione pe rsonae : L'Erat qui organise l'enseignement obligatoire et crÃ©e des Ã©coles publiques est responsable des actes des maÃ®tres qui administrent des punitions corporelles conformes aux usages scolaires .
IfranÃ§ais : voir p . 152 )
The applicant's fifteen year-old son, Jeffrey, is a pupil at Beath Secondary School, Cowdenbeath, Fife, Scotland . On 23 September 1976 he was walking in the school grounds near the boundary wall on his way home when he was stopped by the Deputy Headmaster who told him not to take a short cut by climbing over the school wall . Jeffrey apparently did as he was told and left the school by the main entranc e However, it is submitted that he was also told to report to the Deputy Headmaster's office the following morning to receive "six of the best" for taking the short cut . On the advice of his father, Jeffrey reported to the Deputy Headmaster's office but refused to accept the punishment . As a result he was sent home from school having been informed that he would be suspended until he accepted it . Since this date Jeffrey has not attended school . On 13 January 1977 Mr and Mrs Cosans had a meeting with the education authorities at the school about Jeffrey's suspension . In a lener of 14 January 1977, the Senior Assistant Director of Education of the Fife Regional Council confirmed the outcome of the meeting . He stated that he had decided to lift Jeffrey's suspension in view of the fact that Jeffrey's long absence from school constituted punishment enough . He would also lift Jeffrey's suspension from the school provided that Mr and Mrs Cosans : a . "accept that the Rector of the school has the right to designate the entrances and exits to be used in his school" ; an d b . "accept that Jeffrey will obey the rules, regulations or disciplinary requirements of the school" . However Mr and Mrs Cosans had stipulated that if Jeffrey were to be re-admitted to the school he should not receive corporal punishment for an y
incident while he was a pupil, to which the officer replied that ihis condition constituted a refusal to accept that Jeffrey should obey the rules, regulations or disciplinary requirements of the school . Accordingly Jeffrey's suspension was not lifted and Mr and Mrs Cosans were warned that they may be prosecuted for failing to ensure their son's attendance at school . Complaints Mrs Cosans complains that the proposed corporal punishment of her son and thÃ© authorised use of corporal punishment in the school, to which Jeffey may be subject should he return, are contrary to Article 3 of the Convention . She also complains that his suspension from school is contrary to his right to education ensured by Article 2 of Protocol No . 1 and that the punishment awarded to Jeffrey and the use of corporal punishment in the school is contrary to the right of herself and her husband to have their son educated in conformity with their philosophical convictions . OBSERVATIONS OF THE PARTIE S Submission of the Governmen t Part I- The organisation of education in Scotlan d A . Generally In Scotland the responsibility for the administration of education rests with local authorities, the regional councils, central Government formulating general educational policy and performing supervisory functions . The local authority concerned with the present application is the Fife Region Education Authority . B In regard to corporal punishment in schools at central Authority level The policy of the Scottish Education Authorities as set out in the 1968 Code of Practice on corporal punishment of the Liasion Committee on Educational Matters is, in the short term, to -estrict as far as possible corporal punishment in schools and, in the long term, to eliminate it altogether . The authorities however take the view that, within the guidelines of the Code of Practice, ii is for the teachers and regional councils to . determine .the disciplinary measures needed in the schools . The Code of Practice, although, of no statutory value, is nevertheless an important instrument of policy, being incorporated in teachers' contract s - 142 -
in some areas and setting out standards which may be referred to in any civil or criminal court proceedings arising out of the excessive or arbitrary administration of corporal punishment . C . In regard to corporal punlshmenr in schools ar local authority level Reaction to the Code of Practice has been generally favourable, most education authorities adopting its approach to corporal punishment . Although the teachers under the Fife Education Authority are not bound in contract by the Code of Practice they are aware that the authority supports the Code, for example, through the various directives and circulars it has issued to this eftect and talks on the subject given by the Director of Education to probationer teachers at the beginning of a new session . Part II A . The law of Scorland applicable to corporal punishment in schools "The use of corporal punishment in Scottish schools is controlled by the civil and criminal law, particularly by the law of assault" . It is controlled thus by the common law, the courts applying public policy and prevailing social attitudes . The general principle is that a person is liable to criminal or civil proceedings for assault with the exception of teachers who may apply corporal punishment in moderation to ensure discipline in the schools . Excessive, arbitrary or cruel punishmert by a teacher would fall foul of the law .
B . The law of Scotland applicable to suspension of a child from school It is the duty of a head teacher to undertake the proper and efficient administration of his school . Inherent in this duty is the right of a head teacher to suspend a child from attendance at his school, a right enacted in S . 35 131 of the Education tScotlandl Act 1962 . Parents have a duty under S . 31 of the 1962 Act to ensure their child attends school and S . 35 makes it an offence not to do so "without reasonable excuse" . A refusal to comply with the disciplinary requirements of a school is not a reasonable excuse lor non-attendance . In the present case Jeffrey Cosans was suspended from Beath Senior High School by the head teacher in September 1a76, for refusing to accept corporal punishment The suspension was continued in January 1977 as Mr and Mrs Cosans insisted that no corporal punishment could be administered lo their son for the remainder of his sludies at the school even though the school were willing not to punish Jeffrey for the original incident as it was felt that his absence from school had been punishment enough . Neither the authority nor the head teacher can undertake that Jeffrey would not be corporally punished in the future because they may not be able to abide by - 143 -
it, given the existing contracts between teachers and the authority . Jeffrey's continued absence from school may be deemed to be the fault of the parents, however, and legal proceedings may ensue . In the authority's view, therefore, their action is justified and within the law . Part III - Examination of facts Jeffrey Cosans at the time of his suspension in January 1977 was a pupil at Beath Senior High School . He ceased to be of compulsory school age on 31 May 1977 . A . Breach of rules On 23 September 1976 Jeffrey was seen by the Assistance Headmaster heading with two other boys towards the boundary railing . One of the boys jumped over the railing into the adjacent cemetery which is out of bounds to pupils, being private property and deserving due respect . Jeffrey and the other boy spoke to the Assistant Headmaster and admitted their intention to take a "short cut" through the cemeterey and their awareness of the school rules prohibiting it . They realised they would be corporally punished, particularly as Jeffrey had already been warned four times for doing this . They reported to the Assistant Headmaster and refused to accept the punishment . Jeffrey said that his father had instructed him to refuse . Both boys were suspended from the school . The boy who had actually jumped over the wall was punished on Monday 27 September and so was the second boy when he returned to school on Tuesday 28 September by three strokes of a tawse on the palm of their hand administered by the Assistant Headmaster to each of them separately in the privacy of his room . Jeffrey would have received the same . Such punishment is in accordance .with the Code of Practice and the School's practice for serious misconduct . It is the maximum punishment given to pupils in the third year and older . On 18 October 1976 when the Cosans met the Senior Assistant Director of Education they voiced their disapproval of corporal punishment .
B . Suspension from school Mr and Mrs Cosans were officially notified of Jolfrey's suspension on 1 October 1976 and had an inconclusive meeting with the Senior Assistant Director of Education on 18 October 1976 No further meeting took place until 13 January 1977 as the Cosans left on holiday and then changed address without notifying the school authorities . Their new address was discovered accidentally The meeting of 13 January 1977 was as described in "The Facts " The Government submit that Jeffrey Cosans' school record was unsatisfactory particularly in view of frequent absences lrom-school withou t
reason . Since the suspension the authorities have endeavoured to ensure Jeffrey's return to school and his continued absence is deemed the responsibility and fault of his parents . Part IV - Consideration of admissibilit y A . The position of the applicant in relation to Article Conventio n
3 o f the
The Government challenge the competence of the applicant to present the applicant . They submit that in accordance with the Commission's constant jurisprudence an applicant may not complain about a law in the abstract . Mrs Cosans is not a direct victim of any alleged breach of Article 3 of the Convention, rior is her son who will not now be punished for trying to lake a "short cut" home, and will not be corporally punished in the future if he returns to school and behaves properly . Therefore il is contended that the applicalion is incompatible with the provisions of the Convention . B . The position of the respondent Governmen t Even if Jeffrey Cosans were to be corporally punished the teacher concerned would be responsible to his employer, the regional council, and the courts, notlhe Secretary of State for Scotland . It is not sure therefore that the IiabiGty of the Government under the Convention would be incurred in such circumstance s C . Domestic remedies As regards Jeffrey's suspension from 'school the Cosans have the right to appeal against the decisiorl of ihe Senior Assistant Director of Education not to lift the suspension . This right has not been exercised . Although the Cosans have made representations to the Fife Education Authority about their views on corporal punishment, they have not requested the Secretary of State for Scotland to exercise his powers under Section 31 of the Education IScotlandl Act 1962 to take measures, as regards iheir son, to redress an alleged failure to apply the general principle of educating pupils in accordance with parents' wishes . Nor have Mr and Mrs Cosans attempted to obtain a court declaration against the Secretary of State on the same principle . D . Article 3 of the Conventio n The Government submit that corporal punishment in Scottish schools being exercised in a moderate fashion and condoned by prevailing social attitudes for the maintenance of proper discipline, falls far short of torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment as prohibited by Article 3 of the Convention . Reference is made to the Commission's previous jurisprudence on this Article and in particular a distinction is drawn betwee n
corporal punishment in schools and judicial corporal punishment which th ( 5856/72)eComisnfudtbegraipnshmteT.yrca Even if the applicant's son had been punished on the hand with a tawse in normal circumstances, it is contended that no violation of Article 3 would have occurred and the application is, therefore, manifestly ill-founded . E . Article 2 of Protocol No . 7 The applicant has submitted that the suspension of Jeffrey from school fails to ensure his right to education and the use of corporal punishment in the school is contrary to her and he : husband's philosophical convictions both of which matters contravene Article 2 of Protocol No . 1 As regards the first contention the Government deny that Jeffrey is being denied his right to educauon . The facilities are there for use ; since January 1977 the threat of corporal punishment has been removed and his continued absence from school is now entirely the Cosan family's responsibility In this respect they submit that the complaint is manifestly ill-founded . As regards the second contention the Government submit that the right of parents ensured by Article 2 does not extend to such matters . From the Travaux PrÃ©paratoires and the judgment of the Court of December 1976 in the Danish Sex Education cases, it is clear that this provision in Article 2 was designed to prevent the introduction of children "ideological propaganda", unacceptable to parents . It is concerned more with the contents of instruction given, not the method . Methods ol discipline and other practical matters concerning the administration of a school do not affect a child's religious or philosophical convictions . To hold otherwise would impose impossible practical restrictions on State education authorities . Reference is made to the Reservation of the United Kingdom to Article 2, namely that the United Kingdom accepts the need to educate children in accordance with parents' wishes in so far as it is compatible with efficient instruction and training and the avoidance of unreasonable expenditure . Reference is also made to page 32 of the Court's judgment in the Belgian Lingurstic case, namely that Article 2 does not require a State to cater for parents' cultural or linguistic preferences whether or not part of someone's "personal philosophÃ¿", but only to respect their religious and philosophical beliefs . Accordingly the Government conclude that the applicant's complaint is incompatible ratione mareriae with the provisions of the Convention .
Submissions of the applican t Pa rt I - The fact s Concerning the incident on 23 September 1976 the applicant states that Jeffrey was intending to take a short cut home through an adjacent field an d
part of the cemetery, a route he had taken for four years, for which the Headmaster and the cemetery attendant had given permission since his first year at the school and which represented a considerable short cut of half a mile to the applicant's home . When the boys were called by the Assistant Headmaster they made no secret of their intentions but were informed they would receive "six of the best" the next morning . Jeffrey was told by his father lo refuse the punishment as the school was well aware of the Cosans' views on corporal punishment . It is believed that the boy who actually took Ihe short cut home was punished with eight strokes of the tawse . It was anticipated therefore that Jeffrey would have received six . The applicant denies cateaorically the unsatisfactory school record portrayed by the Government . Her son was of average ability and attainment at the school according to the school reports sent home to her . Absence from school was only because of ill-hr.alth . Nor does she accept the statement of the usual corporal punishment practice at the school for Jeifrey had received six strokes on at least one occasion . The applicant claims that she was in touch with the education authority and notified ihem of her new address, contrary to the statement by the Government . The responsibility for the delay in arranging a second meeting before January 1977 is attributed to the Senior Assistant Director of Education . The Cosans are willing to have their son abide by the school's regulations except in respect of corporal punishment . They consider that an undertaking not to have their scn so punished was well within the authority's powers . Part II - Domestic remedie s The applicant submits that there is no effective remedy against the use of corporal punishment in Scottish schools in normal circumstances, being lawful ounishment in the maintenance of school discipline . The applicant accepts that the authorities, both local and central, properly discharge their functions under ihe relevant education legislation . There is no duty however to abandon corporal punishment in the school, or to make exceptions to its general use . Hence the remedies referred to by the Government are of no relevance and wholly unrealistic Meetings with the staff of the Education Authority had not given the Cosans any reason to hope any such exception could be made for their son or that a change inthe general administrative practice of corporal punishment in the school could be brought about .
Part Ill - Article 3 of the Conventio n Even though the evaluation of the effect of corporal punishment may be largely a subjective matter, the applicant submits that corporal punish-
ment, particularly for a child brought up to believe it is wrong, is degrading treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention . A parallel is drawn with the effects of judicial corporal punlshment which the Commission has cor demned as being in contravention of Article 3 . Part IV - Article 2 of Protocol No . 1 The applicant submits that by their intransigent policy concerning corporal punishment, the suspension ordered by the Education Authority constructively denied Jeffrey of his right to education contrary to Article 2 of Protocol No : 1 . To the applicant corporal punishment is offensive and wrong The applicant accepts punishment as necessary to maintain d .scipline in schools but not corporal punishment . Other punishments would not be impracticable to impose . Thus it is submitted that her right to have her son educated in accordance with her philosophical beliefs is a further breach of Article 2 of Protocol No . 1 .
THE LA W The applicants' complaints concern the use of corporal punishment as a disciplinary measure in Scottish schools . They maintain that this practice constitutes treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention and also fails to respect the right of the first applicant as a parent to ensure her son's education and teaching in conformity with her own philosophical convictions, as guaranteed by Article 2 of Protocol No . 1 . They further complain that the second applicant's suspension (rom school violates his right to education under the same Article . As regards Article 2 of Protocol No . 7 2 . The Commission has first examined the applicant's complaints relating to Article 2 of Protocol No . 1 which provides : "No person shall be denied the right to education . In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teachina, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions" . 3 . In this context the respondent Government query the responsibility of the State for the administration of corporal punishment in Scottish schools and for the day-to-day running of individual schools including the decision t o _1qg_
suspend a pupil in a particular case . They query therefore their liability for any alleged breach of the Convention . However, the responsibility of a State under the Convention may arise for acts of all its organs, agents and servants . Responsibility for educational policy in Scotland rests with the Secretary of State for Scotland . By legislation, the administration of education is in the hands of regional authorities with whom teachers have contracts of employment . In circumstances, therefore, where the State provides for and organises compulsory education in State schools, the State is accountable under the Convention for the acts of their school authorities, including teachers, and, in particular, for the administration of corporal punishment where it forms part of the educational policy as well as for the decision to suspend a pupil especially where, as in the present case, no limit is fixed for the suspension . II follows that the application cannot be rejected on the ground that the Commission has no competence rarione personae under the Convention for the situation complained of . 4 The respondent Government next submit that the first applicant has not complied with the provisions of Article 26 of the Convention which provides that the "Commission may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised principles of international law . . ." . The Government submit firstly that she has not exercised her right to request the Secretary of State for Scotland to enforce the duty of education authorities to respect her right to have her child educated in accordance with her wish, according to Section 29 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1962 . The Commission observes, however, that the provisions of Section 29 generally refer to respecting the wishes of parents but limit the right insofar as it is compatible with the provision of suitable instructions and the avoidance of unreasonable expenditure . There is indeed no general duty and no clear obligation under the above Section to make an exception of the applicant's son in this respect . The above considerations also apply to the decisions of the Assistant Director of Education of the Fife Regional Council to suspend the second applicant from school as the revocation of this decision depended on the second applicant's acceptance of the condition that he would obey the rules, regulations or disciplinary requirements of the school, which also cover corporal punishment . The Government also submit that the applicant might be able to obtain a court declaration to prevent any immediate threat of corporal punishment of her son . However, the Commission notes that it is not in dispute that moderate corporal punishment by school teachers is accepted in domestic law and is not as such justiciable in the courts . - 149 -
The Commission therefore considers that the petitions and requests referred to above are not effective remedies under the generally recognised principles of international law which the applicant is required to use . It tollows that the application cannot be declared inadmissible under Article 26 of the Convention . The respondent Government further submit that, in any event, the 5 complaint is incompatible with the provisions of the Convention as it cortcerns an administrative matter, a method of instruction and discipline and not a matter of philosophical conviction within the meaning of Article 2 of Protocol No . 1 . Concerning the second applicant's suspension from school, the respon6 dent Government submit that this part of the application is manifestly illfounded . They deny that this applicant has been deprived of his right to education as facilities are at his disposal in this respect . Having examined the informatiÃ´n and arguments presented by the parties, the Commission considers that the questions of whether or not the administration of corporal punishmerrt in schools and, in the circumstances of the present case, the second applicant's suspension from school fall to be considered under Article 2 of Protocol No 1, and, if so, whether or not there has been a breach of this provision in the present case, are complex questions concerning the interpretauon of the Convention the determination of which should depend on an examination on the merits . This part of the application is therefore admissible, no other ground for declaring it inadmissible having been established . As regards Article 3 of the Convention 7 . The Commission has next considered the applicant complaint that the practice in Scottish schools of applying . corporal punishment to pupils as a disciplinary measure constitutes treatment contrary to Article 3 of the Convention which prohibits torture, or inhuman or degrading treatment or punishmen t 8 . In this context the respondent Government first maintain thai, as the second applicant has not himself been subject to any corporal punishment at school, and as he will not now be punished for having tried to take a "short cut" . and will not be corporally punished in the future if he behaves properly at school, the applicants cannot claim to be victims of a violation of Article 3 of the Convention . The Government further maintain that the State cannot be hel d responsible for any breach of the Convention, that domestic remedies have not been exhausted, and that, in any event, the application in this respect is manifestly ill-founded
9 . The Commission already dealt with the questions of the State's responsibility under the Convention and of the exhaustion of domestic remedies and has found that the application is not inadmissible on those grounds . 10 As regards the questions of whether or not both applicants can be regarded as victims of a breach of Article 3 of the Convention by reason of any possible risk which the child might incur of being subjected to corporal punishment il his parents sent him back to school concerned and, if so, whether or not the treatment to which he might be subjected amounts to treatment contrary to Article 3, the Commission considers that they raise complex issues regarding the facts of the case and the interpretation of the Convention . The Commission is not, however, required to deal with them at the present stage of its examination of the application . The Commission has already accepted the application insofar as it has been brought under Article 2 of Protocol No . 1 The allegations made by the applicant in the context of Article 3 of the Convention relate to the same facts and circumstances as those made in the context of Article 2 of Protocol No . 1 . Having regard to the interpretation which the European Court of Human Rights has given as to its jurisdiction under Article 45 of the Convention Icf . De Wilde, Ooms and Versyp judgment of 18 June 1971, Series A, No . 12, pp . 2930, paras . 49 and 51 , Handyside judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A, No . 24, p . 20, para . 411 the Cominissicn finds that the determination. o f ttie above quesiions should not be made at the admissibility stage of the application but should depend on an examination of their merit s For these reasons, the Commissio n DECLARES ADMISSIBLE and retains the application, without in any way prejudging its merits .
(TRADUCTION) EN FAI T Le fils de la requÃ©rante, Jeffrey, Ã gÃ© de 15 ans, frÃ©quente la Secondary High School de Beath, Ã Cowdenbeath, Fife, Ecosse . Le 23 septembre 1976 il rentrait chez lui en traversant les pelouses de l'Ã©cole, prÃ©s du mur d'enceinte lorsque le sous-directeur l'arrÃªta et lui dit qu'il ne devait pas prendre un raccourci en escaladant le mur de l'Ã©cole . Jeffrey fit apparemment comme on lui avait dit et quitta l'Ã©cole par l'entrÃ©e principale . Cependant, il lui fut demandÃ© de se prÃ©senter au sous-directeur le lendemain matin pour recevoir Â« six bons coups de martinet n pour avoir pris le raccourci . Sur le conseil de son pÃ©re, Jeffrey se prÃ©senta au sous-directeur mais refusa la punition . Il fut donc renvoyÃ© Ã la maison aprÃ¨s avoir Ã©tÃ© informÃ© qu'il Ã©tait suspendu tant qu'il ne l'accepterait pas . Depuis cette date, Jeffrey n'est pas revenu Ã l'Ã©cole . Le 13 janvier 1977, M . et Mme Cosans ont rencontrÃ© Ã l'Ã©cole des reprÃ©sentants de l'autoritÃ© scolaire Ã propos de la suspension de Jeffrey . Par une lettre du 14 janvier 1977, l'adjoint principal au directeur de l'Ã©ducation du Conseil rÃ©gional de Fife confirma l'issue de la rÃ©union . Il dÃ©clarait avoir dÃ©cidÃ© de rÃ©voquer la suspension de Jeffrey parce que sa longue absence de l'Ã©cole constituait une punition suffisante . II rÃ©voquerait aussi la suspension de JeffrÃ©y de l'Ã©cole Ã condition que M . et Mme Cosans : a . Â« admettent que le directeur de l'Ã©cole a le droit de dÃ©signer les entrÃ©es et sorties Ã emprunter dans son Ã©cole n ; et b . a consentent Ã ce que Jeffrey observe les rÃ¨gles, rÃ©glements et exigences disciplinaires de l'Ã©cole x . M . et Mme Cosans avaient cependant prÃ©cisÃ© que si Jeffrey devait Ã¨tre rÃ©admis Ã l'Ã©cole, il ne devait pas faire l'objet d'un chÃ timent corporel pour quelque incident que ce soit tant qu'il serait Ã©lÃ©ve, Ã quoi le fonctionnaire rÃ©pondit que cette condition constituait un refus d'accepter que Jeffrey observe les rÃ©gles, rÃ©gleinents et exigences disciplinaires de l'Ã©cole . La suspension de Jeffrey ne fut donc pas rÃ©voquÃ©e et M . et Mme Cosans furent avertis qu'ils pouvaient faire l'objet de poursuites parce qu'ils n'envoyaient pas leur fils Ã l'Ã©cole . Griefs Mme Cosans se plaint que le chÃ¢timent corporel envisagÃ© Ã l'encontre de son fils et l'ijsage autorisÃ© du chÃ¢timent corporel Ã l'Ã©cole, auquel Jeffrey pourrait Ã©tre soumis s'il y retournait, sont contraires Ã l'article 3 de la Convention .
Elle se plaint aussi que la suspension de Jeffrey de l'Ã©cole est contraire Ã son droit Ã l'Ã©ducation garanti par l'article 2 du Protocole additionnel et que la sanction qui lui a Ã©tÃ© infligÃ©e et l'usage du chÃ¢timent corporel Ã l'Ã©cole sont contraires au droit de son mari et d'elle-mÃ©me d'assurer l'Ã©ducation de leur fils conformÃ©ment Ã leurs convictions philosophiques .
OBSERVATIONS DES PARTIE S Argumentation du Gouvernement
PremiÃ¨re partie - Organisation de l'enseignement en Ecoss e A . En gÃ©nÃ©ra l En Ecosse, ce sont les pouvoirs locaux, les conseils rÃ©gionaux, qui sont chargÃ©s de l'administration de l'enseignemem, le gouvernement central Ã©laborant la politique de l'Ã©ducation en gÃ©nÃ©ral et exerÃ§ant des fonctions de contrÃ´le . L'autoritÃ© locale concernÃ©e par la prÃ©sente requÃ¨te est l'autoritÃ© scolaire rÃ©gionale de Fife . B . Quant au chÃ¢timent corporel dans les Ã©coles au niveau du gouvernement centra l La politique des autoritÃ©s Ã©cossaises de l'enseignement, telle qu'elle est exposÃ©e dans le Code de 1968 sur la pratique du chÃ timent corporel, publiÃ© par le ComitÃ© de liaison sur les questions d'enseignement (Liaison Committee on education matters) vise Ã court terme Ã limiter autant que possible le chÃ¢timent corporel dans les Ã©coles et Ã long terme Ã le supprimer purement et simplement Les autnritÃ©s estiment cependant que, conformÃ©ment aux lignes directrices du Code, c'est aux enseignants et aux conseils rÃ©gionaux qu'il appartient de dÃ©cider des mesures disciplinaires nÃ©cessaires dans les Ã©coles . Ce Code, bien qu'il n'ait aucune valeur lÃ©gale, n'en constitue pas moins un important instrument de politique, puisqu'il est incorporÃ© dans les contrais des enseignants dans certaines rÃ©gions et qu'il fixe des normes qui peuvent Ãªtre invoquÃ©es dans une procÃ©dure civile ou pÃ©nale susceptible d'Ã©tre engagÃ©e en cas d'administration excessive ou arbitraire d'un chÃ timent corporel . C . Ouant au chÃ¢timent corporel dans les Ã©coles au niveau de l'autoritÃ© locale La rÃ©action au Code est gÃ©nÃ©ralement favorable, la plupart des autoritÃ©s scolaires se ralliant Ã sa conception du chÃ¢timent corporel . Bien que les enseignants relevant de l'administration scolaire de Fife ne soient pas soumis par contrat au Code, ils n'ignorent pas que l'autorit Ã©
approuve celui-ci, notamment en raison des diverses directives et circulaires qu'elle a publiÃ©es en ce sens et les entretiens sur cette question que le directeur de l'enseignement a avec les professeurs stagiaires au dÃ©but de chaque nouvelle pÃ©riode de cours . DeuxiÃ©me pa rtie A . Droit Ã©cossais applicab/e au ch3timent corporel dans les Ã©co%s a L'usage du chÃ¢tlment corporel dans les Ã©coles Ã©cossaises est rÃ©gi par le droit civil et pÃ©nal, notamntent par le droit sur les voies de fait Â» II est donc rÃ©gi par la Â« Common law Â», les tribunaux recherchant l'intÃ©rÃ©t public et tenant compte des compoitements sociaux prÃ©dominants . En principe, toute personne peut faire l'objet d'une procÃ©dure civile ou pÃ©nale pour voies de fait, Ã l'exception des enseignants qui peuvent recourir au chÃ¢timent corporel avec modÃ©ration pour assurer la discipline dans les Ã©coles . Un chÃ¢timent excessif, arbitraire ou cruel administrÃ© par un enseignant tomberait sous le coup de la loi . B . Droit Ã©cossais applicable Ã©/a suspension d'un enfant de l'Ã©cole Il appartient au chef d'Ã©tablissement d'assurer efficacement et convenablement l'administration de son Ã©cole . Son droit de suspendre un enfant de son Ã©cole est inhÃ©rent Ã cette obligation ; c'est un droit consacrÃ© par l'article 35, par3graphe 3 de la loi de 1962 sur l'enseignement en Ecosse . En vertu de l'article 31 de cette mÃªme loi, les parents ont le devoir de veiller Ã ce que leur enfant frÃ©quente l'Ã©cole et l'article 35 Ã©rige en infraction un mariquement Ã ce devoir Â« sans excuse raisonnable Â» . Le refus de se conformer Ã la discipline d'un Ã©tablissement ne constitue pas une excuse raisonnable Ã l'absence . En l'espÃ©ce, Jeffrey Cosans a Ã©tÃ© suspendu de l'Ã©cole secondaire de Beath par le chef d'Ã©tablissement en septembre 1976 parce qu'il refusait de se soumettre au chÃ¢timent corporel . La suspension a Ã©tÃ© maintenue en janvier 1977 car M . et Mme Cosans insistaient pour qu'aucun chÃ¢timent corporel ne soit administrÃ© Ã leur fils pendant le reste de ses Ã©tudes dans cet Ã©tablissement, alors que les responsables de celui-ci Ã©taient disposÃ©s Ã ne pas punir Jeffrey pour l'incident initial, estimant que son absence de l'Ã©cole constituait une sanction suffisante . Ni l'autoritÃ© scolaire, ni le chef d'Ã©tablissement ne peuvent s'engager Ã ce que Jeffrey ne subisse pas de chÃ¢timent corporel Ã l'avenir parce qu'ils seraient peut-Ã¨tre incapables de respecter cet engagement Ã©tant donnÃ© les contrats existant entre les enseignants et l'autoritÃ© . L'absence persistante de Jeffrey peut cependant Ã¨tre imputÃ©e aux parents et il peut s'ensuivre une procÃ©dure judiciaire . L'autoritÃ© scolaire juge donc sa mesure jusufiÃ©e et conforme au droit . _15q_
TroisiÃ¨me partie - Examen des faits A l'Ã©poque de sa suspension, en janvier 1977, Jeffrey frÃ©quentait l'Ã©cole secondaire de Beath . La scolaritÃ© obligatoire a pris fin pour lul le 31 mai 1977 . A . ln(racrion au rÃ©glemen r Le 23 septembre 1976, le sous-directeur aperÃ§ut Jeffrey et deux autres garÃ§ons se diriger vers la cldture . L'un des garÃ§ons enjamba la clÃ´ture pour s'introduire dans le cimetiÃ©re adjacent, interdit aux Ã©lÃ©ves puisqu'il s'agit d'une propriÃ©tÃ© privÃ©e et qu'il invite au respect . Jeffrey et l'autre garÃ§on parlÃ©rent au sous-directeur, admirent qu'ils avaient l'intention de prendre un a raccourci Â» Ã¢ travers le cimetiÃ¨re et qu'ils connaissaient les rÃ¨gles de l'Ã©tablissement qui l'interdisaient . Ils se rendirent compte qu'ils subiraient un chÃ¢timent corporel, notamment du fait que Jeffrey avait dÃ©jÃ reÃ§u quatre avertissements Ã ce sujet . Ils se prÃ©sentÃ©rent devant le sous-directeur et refusÃ©rent le chÃ¢timent . Jeffrey dÃ©clara que son pÃ©re lui avait dit de le refuser . Les deux garÃ§ons furent suspendu de l'Ã©cole . LegarÃ§on qui avait effectivement franchi le mur de clÃ´ture fut puni le lundi 27 septembre, comme le fut le second garÃ§on lorsqu'il retourna Ã l'Ã©cole le mardi 28 septembre, de trois coups de martinet sur la paume de la main, administrÃ©s par le sous-directeur Ã chacun d'eux sÃ©parÃ©ment dans son bureau Jeffrey aurait reÃ§u le mÃ¨me chÃ¢timent, qui est conforme au code et Ã la pratique de l'Ã©tablissement lorsqu'il y a manquement grave . C'est le chÃ¢timent maximal infligÃ© aux Ã©lÃ¨ves de la troisiÃ©me annÃ©e et au-delÃ . Le 18 octobre 1976, lorsque les Cosans rencontrÃ©rent l'adjoint principal au directeur deâ¢ l'enseignement, ils lui firent savoir qu'ils dÃ©sapprouvaient le chÃ¢timent corporel . B . Suspension de l'Acole M . et Mme Cosans furent officiellement avertis de la suspension de Jeffrey le 15 octobre 1976 et ils eurent le 18 octobre 1976 avec l'adjoint principal au directeur de l'enseignement . Aucune autre rÃ©union n'eut lieu avant le 13 janvier 1977 parce que les Cosans partirent en vacances, puis changÃ©rent d'adresse sans le signaler aux autoritÃ©s de l'enseignement . Leur nouvelle adresse fut dÃ©couverte par hasard . La rÃ©union du 13 janvier 1977 a eu Iieu comme il est dit dans la partie Â« En fait n . Le Gouvernement soutient que le dossier scolaire de Jeffrey Cosans Ã©tait insatisfaisant en raison notamment de ses frÃ©quentes absences non motivÃ©es . Depuis la suspension, les autoritÃ©s s'efforcent de faire en sorte que Jeffrey revienne Ã l'Ã©cole ; elles imputent Ã ses parents la responsabilitÃ© et la faute de son absence continue .
QuatriÃ¨me partie - Examen de la recevabifit Ã© A . Position de la requÃ©rante sur le terrain de l'article 3 de la Conventio n Le Gouvernement requÃ©rant conteste que la requÃ©rante ait quaGtÃ© pour introduire la requÃªte . Il soutient que, conformÃ©ment Ã la jurisprudence constante de la Commission, un requÃ©rant ne peut se plaindre d'une loi in abstracto Mme Cosans ne serait pas la victime directe d'une prÃ©tendue violatlon de l'article 3 de la Convention, pas plus que son fils, quP ne sera plus dÃ©sormais puni pour avoir essayÃ© d'emprunter un Â« raccourci Â» pour rentrer Ã la maison, et ne subira pas de chÃ timent corporel Ã l'avenir s'il retourne Ã l'Ã©cole et se conduit correctement . II soutient donc que le requÃ©te est incompatible avec !es dispositions de la Convention . Position du Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur MÃªme si Jeffrey Cosans subissait un chÃ¢timent corporel, ce serait l'enseignant intÃ©ressÃ© qui serait responsable devant son employeur, le Conseil rÃ©gional, et les tribunaux, et non le SecrÃ©taire d'Etat Ã l'Ecosse Il ne serait donc pas sÃ»r que la responsabilitÃ© du Gouvernement au regard de la Convention serait engagÃ©e dans pareilles dirconstances . C . Voies de recours Concernant la suspension de Jeffrey de l'Ã©cole, les Cosans avaient le droit d'interjeter appel contre la dÃ©cision de l'adjoint principal au directeur de l'enseignement de ne pas lever cette suspension . Ils n'ont pas exercÃ© ce droit Bien que les Cosans aient fait des observations Ã l'autoritÃ© scolaire de Fife quant au chÃ¢timent corporel, ils n'ont pas demandÃ© au SecrÃ©taire d'Etat Ã l'Ecosse d'exercer les pouvoirs, que lui confÃ©re l'article 31 de la loi de 1962 sur l'enseignement en Ecosse, de prendre des mesures concernant leur fils, pour remÃ©dier Ã une prÃ©tendue omission d'appliquer le principe gÃ©nÃ©ral voulant que l'eriseignement soit dispensÃ© aux Ã©lÃ©ves conformÃ©ment aux vcaux des parents . M . et Mme Cosans n'ont pas non plus tentÃ© d'obtenir une dÃ©cision judiciaire Ã l'encontre du SecrÃ©taire d'Etat en vertu du mÃªme principe . Article 3 de la Conventio n Le Gouvernement soutient que le chÃ¢timent corporel, Ã©tant infligÃ© avec modÃ©ration dans les Ã©coles Ã©cossaises et tolÃ©rÃ© par les attitudes sociales prÃ©dominantes en vue du maintien d'une juste discipline, ne constitue pas une torture, une peine ou un traitement inhumains ou dÃ©gradants tels que les interdit l'article 3 de la Convention . II se rÃ©fÃ©re Ã la jurisprudence antÃ©rieure de la Commission sur cet article et il distingue en particulier entre le chÃ timent corporel dans les Ã©coles et le chÃ¢timent judiciaire corporel que, dans l'aflaire Tyrer 15856/721, la Commission a jugÃ© Ã©tre un traitemen t
dÃ©gradant . MÃ¨me si le fils de la requÃ©rante avait Ã©tÃ© corrigÃ© sur la main avec un martinet dans des circonstances normales, il n'y aurait pas eu selon le Gouvernement violation de l'article 3 ; la requÃªte serait donc manifestement malfondÃ©e . E . Article 2 du protor,ole nÂ° 1 La requÃ©rante a fait valoir que la suspension de Jeffrey de l'Ã©cole va Ã l'encontre du droit de celui-ci Ã l'Ã©ducation et que l'usage du chÃ timent corporel Ã l'Ã©cole est contraire Ã ses propres convictions philosophiques et Ã celles de son mari, deux choses qui contreviennent Ã l'article 2 du protocole nÂ° 1 . Pour ce qui est du premier argument, le Gouvernement conteste que Jeffrey se voie dÃ©nier son droit Ã l'Ã©ducation Les possibilitÃ©s d'enseignement existent et il peut en user ; depuis janvier 1977, la menace du chÃ¢timent corporel a disparu et son absence continue de l'Ã©cole est dÃ©sormais entiÃ©rement imputable Ã la famille Cosans .le Gouvernement soutient Ã cet Ã©gard que le grief est manifestement mal fondÃ© . Pour ce qui est du second argument, le Gouvernement soutient que le drolt des parents garanti par l'article 2 ne s'Ã©tend pas Ã de pareilles questions . Il ressort clairement des travaux prÃ©paratoires et de l'arrÃªt de la Cour de dÃ©cembre 1976 dans les Affaires danoises sur l'Aducation sexuelle que cette disposition de l'article 2 vise Ã empÃªcher l'endoctrinement des enfants et la Â« propagande idÃ©ologique Â» inacceptables pour les parents . Elle vise davantage le contenu de l'enseignement dispensÃ© que la mÃ©thode employÃ©e Les modes de discipline et autres questions pratiques concernant l'administration d'une Ã©cole ne touchent pas aux convictions religieuses ou philosophiques d'un enfant . Penser autrement imposerait des restrictions irrÃ©alisables en pratique aux autoritÃ©s de l'enseignement public . Le Gouvernement se rÃ©fÃ©re Ã la rÃ©serve formulÃ©e sur l'article 2 par le Royaume-Uni selon laquelle celui-ci n'accepte la nÃ©cessitÃ© d'instruire les enfams conformÃ©ment aux veeux des parents que dans la mesure oÃ¹ elle est compatible avec l'octroi d'une instruction et d'une formation efficaces et n'entraÃ®ne pas de dÃ©penses publiques dÃ©mesurÃ©es . Il se rÃ©fÃ©re aussi Ã la page 32 de l'arrÃ¨t de la Cour dans l'Affaire linguistique belge d'oÃ¹ il ressort que l'article 2 n'impose pas Ã l'Etat le respect des prÃ©fÃ©rences culturelles ou linguistiques des parents, qu'elles relÃ©vent ou non de la Â« philosophie personnelle Â», mais seulement le respect de leurs convictions religieuses et philosophiques . Le Gouvernement conclut en consÃ©quence que le grief de la requÃ©rante est incompatible ratione materiae avec les dispositions de la Convention .
Argumentation de la requÃ©rante PremiÃ©re partie - Les fait s Concernant l'incident du 23 septembre 1976 , la requÃ©rante dÃ©clare que Jeffrey avait l'intention de prendre un raccourci pour se rendre chez lui en passant par un champ jouxtant l'Ã©cole et une partie du cimetiÃ©re, iunÃ©raire qu'il empruntait dÃ©jÃ depuis quatre ans et pour lequel le directeur de l'Ã©cole et le gardien du cimetiÃ©re avait donnÃ© leur autorisation dÃ¨s sa premiÃ¨re annÃ©e scolaire, et qui rÃ©duisait sensiblement - de 800 mÃ©tres - son trajet Lorsque les garÃ§ons furent interpelÃ©s par le sous-directeur, ils ne lui firent pas mystÃ©re de leurs intentions, mais ils furent informÃ©s qu'ils recevraient Â« six bons coups de martinet n le lendemahâ¢ matin . Le pÃ©re de Jeffrey lui dit de refuser le chÃ¢timent car l'Ã©cole connaissait parfaitement les idÃ©es des Cosans sur le chÃ timent corporel . La requÃ©rame croit savoir que le garÃ§on qui emprunta effectivement le raccourci reÃ§ut huit coups de martinet . Elle pouvait donc penser que Jeffrey en recevrait six . La requÃ©rante nie catÃ©goriquement que son fils ait un mauvais dossier scolaire comme l'a dit le Gouvernement . Son fils avait des aptitudes et des rÃ©sultats moyens Ã l'Ã©cole, Ã en croire les bulletins scolaires qui lui ont Ã©tÃ© adressÃ©s . Son absence de l'Ã©cole ne serait due qu'Ã© sa mauvaise santÃ© . Elle n'accepte pas non plus ce qui a Ã©tÃ© dit de la pratlque du chÃ timent corporel Ã l'Ã©cole parce que Jeffrey avait reÃ§u une fois au moins six coups de martinet . La requÃ©rante prÃ©tend avoir Ã©tÃ© en contact avec l'autoritÃ© scolaire et lu i avoir communiquÃ© sa nouvelle adresse, contrairement aux dires du Gouvernement Elle impute le retard aportÃ© Ã l'amÃ©nagement d'une seconde rÃ©union avant janvier 1977 Ã l'adjoint principal au directeur de l'enseignement . Les Cosans sont disposÃ©s Ã ce que leur fils respecte le rÃ¨glement de l'Ã©cole sauf pour ce qui concerne le chÃ timent corporel . Ils estiment que l'autoritÃ© scolaire aurait tout-Ã -fait pu s'engager Ã ne pas infliger pareil chÃ timent Ã leur fils .
DeuxiÃ¨me partie - Voies de recours internes La requÃ©rante soutient qu'il n'existe pas normalement de recours efficace contre l'usage du chÃ¢timent corporel dans les Ã©coles Ã©cossaises, parce qu'il s'agit d'un chÃ timent juridiquement admis pour le maintien de la discipline scolaire . Elle reconnait que les autoritÃ©s locales et centrales assurent convenablement leurs fonctions au regard de la lÃ©gislation pertinente sur l'enseignement . Elles ne sont cependant pas tenues d'abroger le chÃ¢timent corporel dans les Ã©coles ou d'y apporter des exceptions . Les recours mentionnÃ©s par le Gouvernement ne prÃ©sentent donc aucun intÃ©rÃ©t et son t
totalement irrÃ©alistes . Les rÃ©unions tenues avec le personnel de l'autoritÃ© scolaire n'ont pas donnÃ© aux Cosans de raisons d'espÃ©rer qu'une telle exception pourrait Ãªtre faite en faveur de leur fils, ou qu'un changement pourrait Ãªtre apportÃ© dans la pratique administrative gÃ©nÃ©rale du chStlment corporel Ã l'Ã©cole .
TroisiÃ©me partie - Article 3 de la Convention Bien que l'apprÃ©ciation des effets du chÃ¢timent corporel soit essentiellement subjective, la requÃ©rante soutient que le chÃ timent corporel, en particulier pour un enfant Ã©levÃ© dans la pensÃ©e que c'est une erreur, constitue un traitement dÃ©gradant contraire Ã l'article 3 de la Convention . Elle le met en parallÃ¨le avec les effets du chÃ¢timent judiciaire corporel que la Commission a condamnÃ© comme contraire Ã l'article 3 . QuatriÃ¨me pa rt ie - Article 2 du Protocole additionnel La requÃ©rante fait valoir qu'en raison de la politique intransigeante en matiÃ©re de chÃ timent corporel, la suspension ordonnÃ©e par l'autoritÃ© scolaire Ã implicitement dÃ©niÃ© Ã Jeffrey son droit Ã l'Ã©ducation en violation de l'aÂ«icle 2 du Protocole additionnel . Aux yeux de la requÃ©rante, le chÃ¢timent corporel est une mesure insultante et erronÃ©e . Elle admet que le chÃ¢timent est nÃ©cessaire pour maintenir la discipline dans les Ã©coles, mais pas le chÃ¢timent corporel . L'application d'autres peines ne serait nullement inconcevable . Elle soutient donc que son droit Ã faire instruire son fils conformÃ©ment Ã ses convictions philosophiques a lui aussi Ã©tÃ© violÃ© au regard de l'article 2 du Protocole additionne l
EN DROI T Les griefs des requÃ©rants portent sur l'usage du chÃ¢timent corporel Ã titre disciplinaire dans les Ã©coles Ã©cossaises . Les requÃ©rants soutiennent que cette pratique constitue un traitement contraire Ã l'article 3 de la Convention et, de plus, ne respecte pas le droit de la premiÃ¨re requÃ©rante, en tant que parent, Ã assurer l'Ã©ducation et l'enseignement de son fils conformÃ©ment Ã ses propres convictions philosophiques, comme le garantit l'article 2 du Protocole additionnel . Ils se plaignent en outre que la suspension du second requÃ©rant de l'Ã©cole viole son droit Ã l'Ã©ducation au titre du mÃªme article .
Quant B /'artrc% 2 du Protocole additionnel 2 . La Commission a d'abord examinÃ© les griefs de la requÃ©rante relatifs Ã l'article 2 du Protocole additionnel, qui dispose : Â« Nul ne peut se voir refuser le droit Ã l'instruction . L'Etat, dans l'exercice des fonctions qu'il assumera dans le domaine de l'Ã©ducatio n
et de l'enseignement, respectera le droit des parents d'assurer cette Ã©ducation et cet enseignement conformÃ©ment Ã leurs convictions religieuses et philosophiques . n 3 . A ce propos, le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur met en doute que l'Etat soit responsable de l'administration du chÃ¢timent corporel dans les Ã©coles Ã©cossaises et de la gestion quotidienne des diffÃ©rentes Ã©coles, y compris de la dÃ©cision de suspendre un Ã©lÃ©ve dans tel ou tel cas . Il met donc en doute sa responsabilitÃ© concernant une prÃ©tendue violation de la Convention . Cependant, la responsabilitÃ© d'un Etat sur le terrain de la Convention peut Ãªlre engagÃ©e par les actes de tous ses organes, prÃ©posÃ©s et fonctionnaires . La responsabilitÃ© de la politique de l'Ã©ducation en Ecosse incombe au SecrÃ©taire d'Etar Ã l'Ecosse . La lÃ©gislation confie l'administration de l'enseignement aux autoritÃ©s rÃ©gionales, auxquelles les enseignants sont liÃ©s par un contrat de travail . Dans ces conditions, lorsque l'Etat assure et organise l'enseignement obligatoire dans les Ã©tablissements publics, il est responsable au regard de la Convention des actes de ses autoritÃ©s scolaires, y compris des enseignants, et en particulier de l'administration du chÃ¢timent corporel lorsque celui-ci relÃ¨ve de la politique Ã©ducative, ainsi que de la dÃ©cision de suspendre un Ã©lÃ©ve en particulier lorsque, comme en l'espÃ©ce, aucune limite n'est fixÃ©e Ã la suspension . Il s'ensuit que la requÃªte ne peut Ãªtre rejetÃ©e au motif que la Commission n'aurait pas compÃ©tence rarione personae, sur le terrain de la Convention, pour connaÃ®tre de la situation incriminÃ©e . 4 . Le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur soutient ensuite que la premiÃ©re requÃ©rante ne s'est pas conformÃ©e aux dispositions de l'article 26 de la Convention aux termes duquel la Â« Commission ne peut Ãªtre saisie qu'aprÃ¨s l'Ã©puisement des voies de recours internes, tel qu'il est entendu selon les principes de droit international gÃ©nÃ©ralement reconnus . . . Â» . Le Gouvernement fait valoir qu'elle n'a pas exercÃ© son droit de demander au SecrÃ©taire d'Etat Ã l'Ecosse de contraindre les autoritÃ©s scolaires Ã satisfaire Ã leur obligation de respecter son droit d'assurer l'Ã©ducation de son enfant conformÃ©ment Ã ses vczux, comme le prÃ©voit l'article 29 de la loi de 1962 sur l'enseignement en Ecosse . La Commission relÃ©ve toutefois que les dispositions de l'article 29 mentionnent d'une maniÃ©re gÃ©nÃ©rale le respect des vrEux des parents mais limitent ce droit dans la mesure oÃ¹ il doit Ã¨tre compatible avec l'octroi d'une instruction convenable et ne doit pas entrainer de dÃ©penses dÃ©mesurÃ©es . Les autoritÃ©s locales n'ont de fait aucune obligation gÃ©nÃ©rale d'abolir l'usage du chÃ¢timent corporel dans les Ã©tablissements scolaires et aucune obligation expresse en vertu de l'article prÃ©citÃ© de faire une exception en faveur du fils de la requÃ©rante Ã cet Ã©gard . Les considÃ©rations ci-dessus valent aussi pour la dÃ©cisior. de l'adjoint au directeur de l'enseignement du conseil rÃ©gional de Fife de suspendre l e
- 160 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Commission (plénière)Date de la décision : 15/12/1977Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page

References: l'article 3
 l'article 2
 l'article 35
 l'article 31
 l'article 35
 l'article 3
 l'article 3
 l'article 31
 l'article 3
 l'article 3
 l'article 2
 l'article 2
 l'article 2
 l'article 2
 l'article 2
 l'article 3
 l'article 3
 l'article 2
 l'article 3
 l'article 2
 l'article 2
 l'article 26
 l'article 29
 l'article 29