Source: http://www.juricaf.org/arret/CONSEILDELEUROPE-COUREUROPEENNEDESDROITSDELHOMME-19840306-1023383
Timestamp: 2016-12-04 16:50:11+00:00
Document Index: 175313064

Matched Legal Cases: ['art. 5', 'arrêt ', "l'article 37", "l'article 36", "l'article 2", "l'article 2", "l'article 26", "l'article 2", "l'article 2", "l'article 2", "l'article 27"]

FAMILLE H. c. ROYAUME-UNI
Page d'accueil > Résultats de la recherche FAMILLE H. c. ROYAUME-UNI
Type d'affaire : DecisionType de recours : Violation de l'Art. 5-4 ; Non-violation de l'art. 5-1 ; Préjudice moral - constat de violation suffisant ; Remboursement frais et dépens - procédure nationaleNumérotation : Numéro d'arrêt : 10233/83Identifiant URN:LEX : urn:lex;coe;cour.europeenne.droits.homme;arret;1984-03-06;10233.83 Analyses : (Art. 5-1) LIBERTE PHYSIQUE, (Art. 5-1-e) ALIENE, (Art. 5-4) INTRODUIRE UN RECOURSParties : Demandeurs : FAMILLE H.Défendeurs : ROYAUME-UNITexte : APPLICATION/REQUETE NÂ° 10233/8 3 Family H . v/the UNITED KINGDO M Famille H . c/ROYAUME-UN I DECISION of 6 Mzrch 1984 on the admissibility of the application . DÃCISION du 6 mars 1984 sur la recevabilitÃ© de la requÃªt e
Article 2 of the Flrst Protocol : 77te State may establish compulso ry schooling . it is not in breach of its obligation to respect the rights guaranteed by this provision in requiring parents to co-operate in the assessment of their children's educational standardr when rhe parents have chosen to educate their children at home because of dyslexia .
ArfieJe 2 du Protocole addltlonnel : L'Etat peut rendre l'instruction obligatoire . /l ne manque pas d son obligation de respecter les droits reconnus par celle disposition lorsqu'il impose au.r parents un contrdle des connaissances des enfants qu'ils prÃ©fÃ¨rent insrruire Ã domicile pour cause de dyslexie .
(franÃ§ais : voir p. 109)
The applicants are all United Kingdom citizens residing in Worcestershire, England . The first and second applicants are husband and wife . The third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants are their children born in 1962, 1964, 1965 and 1969 respectively .
All suffer to a greater or lesser extent from dyslexia . To cope with the problem the parents have tried different forms of education for their children, and resisted education authority attempts to classify them as educationally sub-normal . The parents have therefore resorted to educating their children at home as they found the State school system repugnant, in particular as regards its use of corporal punishment . As a result officers of their local education authority have at times apparently threatened to take the children into care to oblige attendance at State schools . Private
boarding schools were tried, subsidised by the local authority, and Home Tutors (not specialised in dyslexic education) were proposed, but the parents considered such methods unacceptable to their philosophical views and educational theories . In 1976 the parents were served with orders, under Section 37 of the Education Act 1944, requiring the attendance of the children at local State schools unless it were shown that they were at the material time causing the children to receive efficient, full-time education suitable for their age, ability and aptitude, otherwise than in school . The parents were prosecuted and convicted of failing to comply with the orders . Appeals were dismissed with the proviso that no action was to be taken to enforce attendance orders for four weeks and the parÃ©nts had to provide evidence within four weeks, to the education authority's satisfaction, that the children were receiving education in accordance with Section 36 of the said Education Act . Negotiations between the parents and the education authority were prolonged for two years, relations apparenUy becoming acrimonious . In August 1979 the education authority issued att endance orde rs in re spect of the fourth, fifth and sixth applicant ( the third applicant no longer being of compulsory school age) . The parents were convicted for non-compliance on 16 January 1980 . The applicant parents' defence was that the children were receiving an adequate education at home . This was accepted on appeal to the Crown CoÃ»rt in respect of the fourth applicant, but not in respect of the fifth and sixth applicants . The Crown Court accepted the seriousness, sincerity and good faith of the parents and complimented them on their educational achievements for their children in applying the autonomous method of education, ie self-directed study, rather than the State school transmissive or didactic method . The Crown Court also accepted that the parents were providing systematic, full-time and efficient education for their children but which fell down in certain essential respects - little was being done to teach the children to read, write and use numbers . Furthermore the Court noted that the parents had refused permission to the local education authority to assess the children and that, despite their past experience with the local authority officers, this refusal was unreasonable . The Court considered that the educationauthority had a duty to supervise the children's education and had not behaved in any reactionary or dictatorial fashion . Without insisting that the children should be subject to conventional schooling, the Court found that inadequate attention was being given to the two younger childien's literacy and numeracy . To that extent they were not receiving a suitable education, and accordingly the appeal in their respect was dismissed by way of case stated io the Divisional Court was dismissed on :Anapel
15 July 1982, there being no error of law found in the Crown Court judgment .
- .106 -
COMPLAINTS ( Extract ) The first and second applicants complain that their right to educate thei r children in accordance with their phdosophical convictions, as ensured by Art . 2 of Protocol NÂ° I, has been violated b y a) the persistent harassment of the family by education authorities over many years, culminating i n b) attempts to coerce the younger members to attend State schools whose whole ethos and practices are repugnant to those philosophical convictions, and which resulted in .
c) the criminal convictions of the first and second applicants because they refused to be coerced and upheld their ideals . The applicants submit that the United Kingdom Government's reservation in respect of Art 2 of Protocol NÂ° I is not of relevance in the present case as by not sending their children to State schools and by educating them at home, public money has been economised . All the family share the same philosophical convictions, in particular an abhorrence of authoritarianism and corporal punishment as found in the State school system (cf Eur Court HR, Campbell and Cosans judgment of 25 February 1982, Series A, NÂ° 48, paras 33 and 36) .
THE LAW (Extract ) The applicants, who all suffer from dyslexia, have complained of harassment and coercion by their local education authority to oblige them to educate the applicant children in a manner incompatible with their philosophical convictions . The dispute with the education authority resulted in the criminal convictions of the applicant parents who have resisted the authority's enforcement measures . They claim to be victims of a violation of Art 2 of Protocol NÂ° 1, which provides that : "No person shall be denied the right to education . In the exercise of any functions which it assumes inrelation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformiry with their own religious and philosophical convictions . " The Commission does not consider it necessary to decide whether the applicants can all be said to be victims of the alleged violation of the Protocol, but assumes for the purposes of the present application that they are, because it finds the case anyway inadmissible for the reasons developed below . Moreover the applicants can be said to have complied with the requirements of Art 26 of the Convention having pursued the necessary appeals under the Education Act 1944 and having lodged their application within six months of the final, relevant decision, that of the Divisional Court of 15 July 1982 . - 107 -
The Commission accepts, as did the domestic courts, that the applicant parents' beliefs conceming the education of the applicant children are of a philosophical nature . Such philosophical convictions fall within the scope of Art 2 of Protocol NÂ° 1 . It should be emphasised, however, that Art 2 of Protocol NÂ° I does not guarantee an absolute right to have children educated in accordance with parents' philosophical convictions, but a right to respect for those convictions . The question to he determined, in the present case, is whether the respondent Government, through the education authorities and courts involved in the present case, respected the applicant parents' right to educate their children in accordance with their philosophical convictions . As regards the facts of the present case, the Commission notes that, the applicant parents have suffered criminal conviction for failing to ensure adequate education for their children either at State schools or at home, in particular for not having shown that suitable education in literacy and numeracy was being provided at home for the two younger children . This latter failure is obviously closely linked to the problem of the children's dyslexia . The domestic courts stated, however, that the local education authority had a duty to ensure an adequate education for the children, a duty which sometimes might conflict with parental views, and had not acted in a reactionary or dictatorial fashion . Furthermore the domestic courts did not require the applicant children to attend Stateschools and abandon their type of education, but rather indicated that further cooperation was obligatory with the Iocal education authority to resolve the particular maner of the children's literacy and numeracy . The Commission's task is that of a supervisory body as regards the observance of the Convention . It is not its task to substitute its decision or policy views for that of domestic authorities . It cannot therefore detertrtine whether the applicant parents' methods of education for their dyslexic children is better than those proposed by the education authority in question . Moreover, it is clear that Art 2 of Protocol NÂ° I implies a right for the State to establish compulsory schooling, be it in State schools or private tuition of a satisfactory standard, and that verification and enforcement of educational standards is an integral part of that right . Therefore, as regards the circumstances of the present case, the Commission finds that to requirethe applicant parents to cooperate in the assessment of their children's educational standards by an education authority in order to ensure a certain level of literacy and numeracy, whilst, neveriheless, allowing them to educate their children at hoine, cannot be said to constitute a lack of respect for the applicants' rights under Art 2 of Protocol No 1 . Accordingly the Commission concludes that the case doÃ©s not disclose any appearance of a violation of this provision . It follows that this aspect of the application is manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Art 27 (2) of the Convention .
( RADUC 7 77ON) EN FAI T Les requÃ©rants sont tous des ressortissants du Royaume-Uni habitant le Worcestershire, en Angleterre . Les premier et deuxiÃ©me requÃ©rants sont mari et fenune, les troisiÃ¨me, quatriÃ¨me, cinquiÃ¨me et sixiÃ©me requÃ©rants sont leurs enfants nÃ©s respectivement en 1962, I964, 1965 et 1969 . Tous souffrent Ã des degrÃ©s divers de dyslexie . En raison de ce problÃ¨me, les parents ont essayÃ© pour leurs enfants diverses formes d'instruction et rÃ©sistÃ© aux tentatives des services scolaires de classer les intÃ©ressÃ©s dans la catÃ©gorie des Ã©lÃ¨ves sous-douÃ©s . Estimant le systÃ©me scolaire de l'Etat incompatible avec leurs idÃ©es, quant aux punitions corporelles notamment, ils choisirent la fonnule de l'instruction dans la famille . ll semble qu'en consÃ©quence, des agents des services scolaires locaux aient parfois menacÃ© de mettre les enfants Ã l'assistance publique pour les obliger Ã frÃ©quenter les Ã©coles de l'Etat . Ils suggÃ©rÃ¨rent des internats privÃ©s, subventionnÃ©s par les collectivitÃ©s locales, et proposÃ¨rent des prÃ©cepteurs (non spÃ©cialisÃ©s dans l'enseignement des dyslexiques), mais les parents estimaient ces mÃ©thodes inadmissibles au regard de leurs idÃ©es philosophiques et de leurs thÃ©ories Ã©ducatives . En 1976, sommation fut faite aux parents, conformÃ©ment Ã l'article 37 de la loi de 1944 sur l'enseignement, d'inscrire leurs enfants dans les Ã©coles publiques locales, sauf Ã prouver qu'ils leur faisaient donner Ã plein temps et ailleurs que dans un Ã©tablissement scolaire, un enseignement efficace et adaptÃ© Ã leur 5ge et Ã leurs aptitudes . Les parents furent poursuivis et dÃ©clarÃ©s coupables de dÃ©sobÃ©issance aux sommations . Leurs recours furent rejetÃ©s avec cette rÃ©serve qu'aucune mesure ne serait prise pour exÃ©cuter les sommations de scolarisation en Ã©tablissement d'Etat pendant quatre semaines, au cours desquelles les parents devraient, preuves Ã l'appui, convaincre les services scolaires que leurs enfants recevaient bien une instruction conforme Ã l'article 36 de la loi susdite . Les nÃ©gociations entre parents et services scolaires durÃ¨rent deux ans et il semble que les relations soient allÃ©es en s'envenimant . En aoÃ»t 1979, les services scolaires Ã©mirent des sommations de scolarisation en Ã©tablissement d'Etat pour les 4â¢, 5â¢ et 6Â° requÃ©rants (le 3Â° n'Ã©tait plus d'Ã¢ge scolaire) . Les parents furent reconnus coupables de dÃ©sobÃ©issance aux sommations le 16 janvier 1980 . Ils se dÃ©fendirent en disant que leurs enfants recevaient dans la famille une instruction convenable . La Crown Court admit ce moyen de dÃ©fense en appel pour le 4â¢ requÃ©rant, mais le rejeta pour les 5Â° et 6Ã¨me requÃ©rants . La Crown Court admit le sÃ©rieux, la sincÃ©ritÃ©, la bonne foi des parents et les fÃ©licita des rÃ©sultats Ã©ducatifs obtenus par cette mÃ©thode d'instruction autonome de leurs enfants, c'est-Ã -dire d'Ã©tudes autodirigÃ©es en remplacement de la mÃ©thode didactique ou de transmission utilisÃ©e par l'Ã©cole publique . Le tribunal reconnut Ã©galement que les parents dispensaient Ã plein temps un enseignement efficace e t
systÃ©matique mais qu'il qualifia de lacunaire Ã certains Ã©gards, les intÃ©ressÃ©s ne faisant pas grand chose pour apprendrÃ© aux enfants Ã lire, Ã©crire et compter . De plus, le tribunal releva que les parents avaient refusÃ© aux services scolaires locaux l'autorisation d'Ã©valuer les connaissances des enfants et que, malgrÃ© les rapporis qu'ils avaient eus autrefois avec ces agents des services scolaires, ce refus n'Ã©tait pas raisonnable . Le tribunal estima que les services scolaires avaient le devoir de contrÃ´ler l'enseignement dispensÃ© aux enfants et que leur comportement n'avait rien de rÃ©actionnaire ou de dictatorial . Sans insister pour que les enfants soient soumis Ã une scolarisation traditionnelle, le tribunal estima cepÃ¨ndant que les deux plus jeunes n'Ã©taient pas suffisamment suivis pour l'apprentissage de la lecture et du calcul . Ils ne recevaiÃ©nt dÃ¨s lors pas une instruction convenable et leurs parents furent en consÃ©quence dÃ©boutÃ©s de leur recours sur ce point . Un recours formÃ© par exposÃ© Ã©crit des faits devant la Divisional Court fu t rejetÃ© le 15 juillet 1982, aucune erreur de droit n'ayant Ã©tÃ© relevÃ©e dans le jugemen . trendupalCowrt
GRIEFS (Extrait) Les premier et second requÃ©rants se plaignent de ce que leur droit Ã assurer l'Ã©ducation de leurs enfants conformÃ©ment Ã leurs convictions philosophiques, tel que le leur garantit l'anicle 2 du Protocole additionnel, a Ã©tÃ© violÃ© en raison : a) des brimades continuelles exercÃ©es sur la famille et pendantde nombreuses annÃ©es par les services scolaires locaux et qui ont culminÃ© avec b) des tentatives faites pour contraindre les plus jeunes de leurs enfants Ã frÃ©quenter les Ã©coles publiques - dont l'Ã©thique et les pratiques sont toutes incompatibles avec ces convictions philosophiques, tentatives qui ont about i c) aux condamnations pÃ©nales des premier et deuxiÃ¨me requÃ©rants, qui ont refusÃ© d'Ãªtre contraints pour Ãªtre fidÃ¨les Ã leurs idÃ©aux . Les requÃ©rants soutiennent que la rÃ©serve faite par le Gouvernement du Royaume-Uni Ã l'article 2 du Protocole additionnel n'est pas applicable en l'espÃ¨ce puisqu'en n'envoyant pas leurs enfants Ã l'Ã©cole publique et en leur dispensant une instruction dans la fanulle, ils ont Ã©conomisÃ© l'argent dÃ© l'Etat . Toute la famille partage les mÃªmes convictions philosophiques, notamment une extrÃ©me aversiod pou elrl'autoismepncoresquint dalesyÃ¨mcoird l'Etat (cf . Cour eur . D .H ., arrÃªt Campbell et Cosans du 25 fÃ©vrier 1982, sÃ©rie A, nÂ° 48, par . 33 et 36) .
EN DROIT (Extrait ) Les requÃ©rants, qui souffrent tous de dyslexie, se sont plaints du harc8lement et de la coercition exercÃ©s par les services scolaires locaux pour les obliger Ã assurer l'Ã©ducation de leurs enfants requÃ©rants d'une maniÃ¨re incompatible avec leurs convictions philosophiques . Le litige avec les services scolaires a abouti Ã faire condamner pÃ©nalement les parents requÃ©rants, qui se sont opposÃ©s Ã l'exÃ©cution des mesures dÃ©cidÃ©es par l'administration . Les requÃ©rants se prÃ©tendent vicitimes d'une violation de l'article 2 du Protocole additionnel, ainsi libellÃ© : . Nul ne peut se voir refuser le droit Ã l'instruction . L'Etat, dans l'exercice des fonctions qu'il assumera dans les domaines de l'Ã©ducation 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 . â¢ La Commission n'estime pas nÃ©cessaire de se prononcer sur le point de savoir si les requÃ©rants peuvent tous Ãªtre qualifiÃ©s de victimes de la violation allÃ©guÃ©e du Protocole, mais admet qu'ils le sont aux fins de la prÃ©sente requÃªte car, Ã son avis, celle-ci est de toute maniÃ©re irrecevable pour les motifs indiquÃ©s plus bas . Par ailleurs, les requÃ©rants ont satisfait aux exigences de l'article 26 de la Convention, puisqu'ils ont Ã©puisÃ© les recours prÃ©vus par la loi de 1944 sur l'enseignement et introduit leur requÃªte dans les six mois qui ont suivi la dÃ©cision dÃ©finitive, c'est-Ã -dire celle rendue le 15 juillet 1982 par la Divisional Court . La Commission reconnaÃ®t, comme l'ont fait les juridictions intemes, que le s convictions des parents requÃ©rants concernant l'Ã©ducation des enfants requÃ©rants sont de caractÃ¨re philosophique . Ces convictions philosophiques relÃ¨vent de l'article 2 du Protocole additionnel, dont il faut souligner cependant qu'il ne garantit pas aux parents le droit absolu d'assurer l'Ã©ducation de leurs enfants conformÃ©ment Ã leurs convictions philosophiques, mais le droit au respect de ces convictions . La question Ã trancher en l'espÃ¨ce est celle de savoir si le Gouvernement dÃ©fendeur, par les services scolaires et les tribunaux qui sont intervenus en l'espÃ©ce, ont respectÃ© le droit des parents requÃ©rants d'assurer l'Ã©ducation de leurs enfants conformÃ©ment Ã leurs convictions philosophiques . Quant aux faits de la prÃ©sente affaire, la Commission relÃ¨ve que les parents requÃ©rants ont Ã©tÃ© pÃ©nalement condamnÃ©s pour n'avoir pas assurÃ© Ã leurs enfants une instruction convenable soit dans les Ã©coles publiques soit Ã domicile, puisque notamment ils n'ont pas montrÃ© qu'ils dispensaient Ã domicile aux deux plus jeunes enfants une instruction convenable en fait d'Ã©criture, de lecture et de calcul . Cette demi8re lacune est sans aucun doute Ã©troitement liÃ©e au problÃ¨me de la dyslexie des enfants . Les juridictions intemes ont dÃ©clarÃ© cependant que les services scolaires locaux avaient l'obligation d'assurer aux enfants une Ã©ducation convenable, obligation qui peut parfois heurter l'opinion des parents et que ces services n'avaient pas eu un comportement rÃ©actionnaire ou dictatorial . Par ailleurs, les juridictions intemes
n'ont pas obligÃ© les enfants requÃ©rants Ã frÃ©quenter l'Ã©cole publique et Ã renoncer Ã l'Ã©ducation qui Ã©tait la leur mais ont indiquÃ© plutÃ´t qu'un surcroit de coopÃ©ration Ã©tait obligatoire avec les services scolaires locaux pour rÃ©soudre pour ces enfants la question paniculi8re de l'apprentissage de l'Ã©criture, de la lecture et du calcul . . En matiÃ¨re de respect de la Convention, la Commission a pour rÃ´le d'Ãªtre u n organe de surveillance . II ne lui appartient pas de substituer sa propre dÃ©cision ou ses idÃ©es Ã celles des autoritÃ©s nationales . Elle ne saurait donc trancher le point de savoir si les mÃ©thodes d'Ã©ducation prÃ©conisÃ©es par les parents requÃ©rants pour leurs enfants dyslexiques sont ou non meilleures que celles proposÃ©es par les services scolaires en question . Du reste, il est clair d'une part que l'article 2 du Protocole additionnel implique pour l'Etat le droit d'instaurer une scolarisation obligatoire, qu'elle ait lieu dans les Ã©coles publiques ou grÃ©ce Ã des leÃ§ons particuliÃ©res de qualitÃ© et, d'autre part, que la vÃ©rificÃ¢tion et l'application des normes Ã©ducatives font partie intÃ©grante de ce droit . DÃ¨s lors, s'agissant des circonstances de l'espÃ¨ce, la Commission estime qu'obliger les parents requÃ©rants Ã coopÃ©rer pour qu'un service scolaire puisse apprÃ©cier les normes Ã©ducatives appliquÃ©es aux enfants pour leur garantir un certain niveau d'Ã©criture, de lecture et de calcul, tout en autorisant cependant les parents Ã instruire leurs enfants Ã domicile, ne saurait constituer une mÃ©connaissance des droits garantis aux requÃ©rants par l'article 2 du Protocole additionnel . En consÃ©quence, la Commission estime que l'affaire ne rÃ©v8le aucune apparence de violation de cette disposition . Il s'ensuit que la requÃªte est, sur ce point, manifestement mal fondÃ©e au sens de l'article 27 par . 2 de la Convention .
- 112 -Origine de la décision Pays : Conseil de l'EuropeJuridiction : Cour européenne des droits de l'hommeFormation : Cour (chambre)Date de la décision : 06/03/1984Fonds documentaire : HUDOC Haut de page