FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF DJERI AND OTHERS v. LATVIA
(Applications nos. 50942/20 and 2022/21)
 
JUDGMENT
 
Art 14 (+ Art 2 P1) • Discrimination • Right to education • Non-discriminatory legislative amendments increasing the use of the only State language, Latvian, in compulsory second stage of public and private pre-school education (children aged five to seven), and thus reducing the use of Russian as the language of instruction • Russian-speaking and Latvian-speaking pupils in a relevantly similar situation • Legitimate aims of protecting and strengthening the Latvian language, ensuring the unity of the education system and preparing children for primary education • Conclusions reached in Valiullina and Others v. Latvia and Džibuti and Others v. Latvia fully relevant to Court’s analysis on pre-school education which was also part of the State educational system • Somewhat wider margin of appreciation afforded to States with respect to pre-school education • Legislative amendments implemented gradually, considering stakeholders’ views and with sufficient scope for adaptation to the needs of those affected • Margin of appreciation not overstepped • Difference in treatment on grounds of language consistent with legitimate aims pursued and proportionate • Non-compulsory first stage of pre-school education (children aged one and a half to five) not “within the ambit” of Art 2 P1 taken together with Art 14 and, in any event, inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies
Art 14 (+ Art 2 P1) • Discrimination • Right to education • No discrimination between Russian-speaking children with special needs and Russian-speaking children without special needs at the second stage of pre-school education as alleged by the first and second applicants • State provided support mechanisms, general and individualised, for children with special needs • Bilingual approach ensured throughout pre-school education • Failure to substantiate allegations
Art 2 P1 • Ratione materiae • Application of conclusions drawn in Valiullina and Others v. Latvia and Džibuti and Others v. Latvia • Art 2 P1 does not include the right to access education in a particular language • Latvian being the only official language, applicants could not complain about decreased use of Russian as the language of instruction in Latvian schools per se • Constitutional Court’s findings that the right to education under the Constitution comprised both stages of pre-school education did not expand scope of Art 2 P1 • Broader interpretation entailing stronger protection in the domestic legal system than the Convention consistent with Art 53
 
Prepared by the Registry. Does not bind the Court. STRASBOURG
18 July 2024
FINAL
 
18/10/2024
 
This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. In the case of Djeri and Others v. Latvia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
 Mattias Guyomar, President,
 Lado Chanturia,
 Carlo Ranzoni,
 Mārtiņš Mits,
 Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström,
 Mykola Gnatovskyy,
 Stéphane Pisani, judges,
and Martina Keller, Deputy Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the applications (nos. 50942/20 and 2022/21) against the Republic of Latvia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) by seven Latvian nationals and two “permanently resident non-citizens” of Latvia (“the applicants”), on various dates indicated in the appended table;
the decision to give notice to the Latvian Government (“the Government”) of the applications;
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 25 June 2024,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
INTRODUCTION
1. The case concerns amendments to the domestic law adopted in 2018 (“the 2018 amendments” or “the 2018 reform”) whereby the use of the State language, that is, Latvian, was increased in all pre-schools and the use of Russian was consequently reduced. The applicants relied on Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 and Article 8 of the Convention taken alone and in conjunction with Article 14 of the Convention. THE FACTS
2. The applicants are parents and children who identify themselves as belonging to the Russian-speaking minority in Latvia (see, for more detail, paragraphs 13-16 below). They were represented by Mr A. Kuzmins and subsequently Mr D. Gorba, who were granted leave to represent them. 3. The Government were represented by their Agent, Ms K. Līce. 4. The facts of the case may be summarised as follows. GENERAL BACKGROUND TO THE CASEHistorical background

5. The historical background has been described most recently in Savickis and Others v. Latvia ([GC] no. 49270/11, §§ 12-16, 9 June 2022, with further references). 6. Statistical data on the main ethnic groups in Latvia have been described in Valiullina and Others v. Latvia (nos. 56928/19 and 2 others, §§ 6-10, 14 September 2023), as has information about immigration rates in Soviet times and the use of Latvian and Russian and minority groups’ knowledge of Latvian in Soviet times and following the restoration of Latvia’s independence. 7. The historical background of education, “Russification” policies and minority schools in Soviet times has been described in Valiullina and Others (ibid., §§ 11-12). Overview of the education reform
8. An overview of the education reform pursued by the Latvian authorities following the restoration of the country’s independence has also been described in Valiullina and Others (ibid., §§ 13-20). 9. According to the applicants, the education reform prior to 2018 did not establish any specific requirements in relation to the language to be used in pre-schools. While a bilingual approach had to be used at pre-school for pupils aged five and over, there were no specific requirements for pre-school programmes in Latvian or in minority languages. The applicants agreed with the Government that children aged two to five should have Latvian lessons at least twice a week, and children aged five and over should have Latvian lessons every day (see paragraph 10 below). However, they submitted that the language requirements laid down in Regulation no. 533 (2012) were not mandatory for private educational institutions. 10. According to the Government, from 18 April 2012 onwards the Education Law provided that the Cabinet of Ministers set the guidelines for State pre-school education. Those guidelines included models and templates for pre-school education. From 17 August 2012 until 1 September 2019 that issue was regulated by Regulation no. 533 (2012) entitled “Regulation on State pre-school education guidelines”. Specific models and templates outlining requirements in pre-school education programmes were annexed to that Regulation (Annex 2 contained the model for the general pre-school education programme for minorities, and Annex 4 contained the model for the special pre-school education programmes for minorities). In accordance with those programmes, both languages – the minority language and Latvian – had to be developed. A bilingual approach was recommended for the learning of Latvian. Play-based lessons whereby children aged two to five could learn Latvian had to take place at least twice a week, but children aged five and over had to have such lessons every day. At the same time, the learning of Latvian through play-based lessons and in day-to-day communication had to take place on a daily basis throughout a child’s pre‑school education, whilst a supportive environment was ensured and a variety of learning methods were implemented. 11. On 21 November 2018 the Cabinet of Ministers adopted a new regulation (Regulation no. 716 (2018) entitled “Regulation on State guidelines for pre-school education and model pre-school education programmes”). It provided that as of 1 September 2019 the learning of Latvian had to be facilitated throughout a child’s pre-school education in an integrated learning process, by using a bilingual approach adapted to children’s development and by using Latvian in day-to-day communication. For children aged five and over, the main language of communication in play‑based lessons had to be Latvian, except for in targeted activities organised to help children master the minority language and ethnic culture. Those requirements applied to general pre-school education programmes for minorities and special pre-school education programmes for minorities (see paragraph 54 below). 12. Further legislative amendments to the relevant provisions of the Education Law and the General Education Law were passed in 2022. They have been described in Valiullina and Others (cited above, § 31). PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASEFamily circumstancesDjeri and Others (application no. 50942/20)

13. The first applicant is the mother of the second applicant. They were born in Latvia and consider themselves ethnic Russians. They are Latvian citizens. Russian is the main language used within the family. 14. The third applicant is the mother of the fourth applicant. They were born in Latvia and consider themselves ethnic Russians. The third applicant is a “permanently resident non-citizen” of Latvia, while the fourth applicant is a Latvian citizen. Russian is the main language used within the family. 15. The fifth applicant is the mother of the sixth and seventh applicants. They were born in Latvia and consider themselves ethnic Russians. They are Latvian citizens. Russian is the main language used within the family. Gomajunova and Livdāne (application no. 2022/21)
16. The eighth applicant is the mother of the ninth applicant. They were born in Latvia and consider themselves ethnic Russians. The eighth applicant is a “permanently resident non-citizen” of Latvia, while the ninth applicant is a Latvian citizen. Russian is the main language used within the family. Education pursued by the applicant childrenDjeri and Others (application no. 50942/20)

17. In the 2018/19 and 2019/20 school years – at the age of three and four – the second applicant was at a public pre-school in Jūrmala. In the 2020/21 and 2021/22 school years – at the age of five and six – she was in a preparatory group (pirmsskolas grupa) in the same school; from the age of five she received an education there in accordance with the special minority pre-school education programme for children with speech impairments (speciālā mazākumtautību izglītības pirmsskolas izglītības programma izglītojamajiem ar valodas traucējumiem). No further details have been provided as to the nature of the second applicant’s language impairment. Since 1 September 2022 she has been in class one at a public school. 18. The applicants indicated that the first applicant’s son (born in 2012), who is not an applicant in the present case, had also received an education in accordance with the special pre-school education programme. Subsequently, he had pursued an education in accordance with the general primary education programme for minorities. 19. In the 2016/17, 2017/18 and 2018/19 school years – at the age of two, three and four – the fourth applicant was in a public pre-school in Riga. In the 2019/20 and 2020/21 school years – at the age of five and six – he was in the same pre-school. He received an education in accordance with the general pre-school education programme for minorities (vispārējā mazākumtautību pirmsskolas izglītības programma). In the 2021/22 and 2022/2023 school years he was in class one and two at a public school. 20. In the 2019/20 and 2020/21 school years – at the age of three and four – the sixth applicant was in another public pre-school in Riga. In the 2021/22 and 2022/23 school years – at the age of five and sixth – she was in the same public pre-school. She received an education in accordance with the general pre-school education programme for minorities. 21. At the time the application was lodged the seventh applicant (born in 2020) was not at pre-school. A request had been made to register her at another public pre-school in Riga from 1 September 2021, but not all children who had been registered could obtain a place. There is no precise information as to when the seventh applicant started attending pre-school, but it appears that in the 2022/23 and 2023/24 school years – at the age of two and three – she was at the same pre-school as her sister and received an education in accordance with the general pre-school education programme for minorities. Gomajunova and Livdāne (application no. 2022/21)
22. In the 2020/21, 2021/22 and 2022/23 school years – at the age of two, three and four – the ninth applicant was at a private pre-school in Riga. She received an education in accordance with the general pre-school education programme for minorities. There is no precise information in that regard, but it appears that in the 2023/24 school year – at the age of five – she was at the same pre-school. Review by the Constitutional CourtApplication to the Constitutional Court

23. The domestic legislation concerning the use of Latvian in all pre‑schools (certain provisions contained in Regulation no. 716 (2018) – paragraph 9 of Annex no. 2 and paragraph 9 of Annex no. 4, “the impugned provisions”, see paragraph 54 below) was reviewed by the Constitutional Court (Satversmes tiesa) in proceedings brought by the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth applicants and by eight other individuals who were either children enrolled in or attending public or private pre-schools or the parents of those children (case no. 2019-20-03). 24. Initially, an application lodged solely by parents was refused on the basis that there had been a failure to provide proper legal reasoning. However, upon receiving a newly formulated application, on 25 September 2019 the Constitutional Court instituted proceedings in relation to children and their parents as concerns the compatibility of the impugned provisions with Article 64 of the Constitution (Satversme) (the legislative power), Article 91 (the equal treatment and non-discrimination principles), the first sentence of Article 112 (the right to education) and Article 114 (the rights of minorities). The Constitutional Court refused to institute proceedings as concerns the compatibility of the impugned provisions with Article 110 of the Constitution (the right to family life), on the basis that there had been a failure to provide legal reasoning as to whether Article 110 enshrined any additional rights in the field of education. While the applicants in those proceedings had referred to the principle of good governance arising under Article 1 of the Constitution, they had failed to provide legal reasoning as to how their fundamental rights had been affected in that regard. Thus, the Constitutional Court held that the applicants had failed to comply with the requirements laid down in section 18(1)(4), section 192(1) and 192(6)(1) of the Law on the Constitutional Court: the obligation to provide legal reasoning, the right to submit an application if a person considered that his or her fundamental rights had been affected; and the obligation to substantiate a contention that fundamental rights had been affected. The Constitutional Court refused to institute proceedings, referring to section 20 of the Law on the Constitutional Court (see paragraph 50 below). In their application to the Constitutional Court, the applicants did not ask the court to examine the compatibility of the impugned provisions with the right to private life. The Constitutional Court’s judgment
25. On 19 June 2020 the Constitutional Court issued its judgment. It examined the compatibility of the impugned provisions with the first sentence of Article 112 of the Constitution (the right to education), Article 114 (the rights of minorities), Article 64 (the legislative power), and Article 91 (the equal treatment and non-discrimination principles). (a)   General observations as regards the right to education
(i)      Two stages of pre-school education in Latvia
26. At the outset the Constitutional Court examined the Government’s argument that the applicants’ right to education had not been affected and that the proceedings should be terminated. The court reiterated that the right to education, by its very nature, called for regulation by the State, and that it might vary in time and place according to the needs and resources of society (they referred to Case “relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium” (merits) (23 July 1968, p. 32, § 5, Series A no. 6 – the “Belgian linguistic case”, among other authorities). It followed that the State had a certain margin of appreciation in establishing an education system. Taking into account the needs and resources of society at its particular stage of development, Article 112 of the Constitution enshrined an obligation to respect, protect and ensure the right to education. Taking into account the evolving nature of understanding the development needs of a child, the legislature, under Article 112 of the Constitution, had a margin of appreciation when regulating access to the education system from a young age. Referring to international material (the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (“the Framework Convention”), see also General Comment no. 7 (2005) quoted in paragraph 63 below), the Constitutional Court held that in relation to pre-school education, the practice of international human rights bodies did not specify a particular age from which a child should enjoy the right to education. It had been recognised, however, that a child had the right to education from a young age. The ways in which that right could be exercised varied depending on the capability of the State and the traditions and values of the particular society. 27. As to the Latvian education system, the Constitutional Court noted that children had access to a pre-school educational institution from the age of one and a half, but pre-school education from that age was not compulsory. Parents could choose to use the services provided by pre-school educational institutions. Pre-school education was compulsory from the age of five, as children had to be prepared for primary education. Thus, the Constitutional Court held that the State, in fulfilling its obligation to support parents, had established a pre-school education level – the first level in the education system. In Latvia, the pre-school education level was divided into two stages. 28. The Constitutional Court noted that the first stage of pre-school education was for young children, namely those aged one and a half to five. Parents played a primary role in pre-school education at that stage, and such an approach was in line with international standards. At that stage, parents could choose to ensure a child’s education and development within a family or some other close network, or by additionally and partially entrusting their duties to a pre-school educational institution, its teachers and staff. By creating a stage of pre-school education which a child could enter from the age of one and a half, the State had created a support mechanism for parents to ensure their children’s education and development. It followed that the first stage of pre-school education (for children aged one and a half to five) could not be viewed in isolation from the general education system; it formed an integral part of the general education system. The second stage of pre-school education was compulsory for children aged five to seven. The aim of that stage was to prepare a child for primary education. 29. The Constitutional Court concluded that the right to education as enshrined in the first sentence of Article 112 of the Constitution included both stages of pre-school education in Latvia. (ii)    Scope of protected rights
30. The applicants argued that the impugned provisions restricted the right to receive a quality education in their mother tongue, as well as the right of parents to participate in the educational process. The Constitutional Court concluded that the first sentence of Article 112 of the Constitution comprised the applicants’ right to expect that the system of education established by the State would be available, accessible, acceptable and adaptable. At the same time, the Constitutional Court stated that this Article did not include the right to an education in a language of one’s choice. Therefore, the Constitutional Court examined the applicants’ arguments in so far as they pertained to the right to receive an education which was compatible with the objectives of education, that is, a quality education. In that regard, the applicants argued (i) that the changes provided for by the impugned provisions would decrease the quality of education; (ii) that the State had not provided sufficient training and retraining opportunities for teachers; and (iii) that the right of parents to participate in the educational process had not been respected. In that regard, the Constitutional Court had to assess whether the State had complied with its obligations as regards making education available, accessible, acceptable and adaptable (it referred to its ruling in case no. 2018-12-01, see Valiullina and Others, cited above, § 46). The first sentence of Article 112 of the Constitution included the applicants’ right to request that the State comply with its obligations in that regard. Consequently, the Constitutional Court did not terminate the proceedings and examined the applicants’ submissions in that regard. (b)   Article 112 of the Constitution
(i)      Positive obligations
31. In relation to the substance of the right to education, the Constitutional Court held that the case concerned the State’s positive obligations and not the alleged interference with the applicants’ rights. It proceeded to examine their arguments in that regard (see paragraph 30 above). (ii)    Quality of pre-school education
32. The Constitutional Court noted that the impugned provisions provided that throughout a child’s pre-school education, that is, from the age of one and a half to seven, the learning of Latvian was facilitated by an integrated education process, using a bilingual approach. However, as regards the pre‑school education stage for children aged five to seven, the main language of communication in play-based lessons was Latvian (see paragraph 54 below). As the applicants had doubted the true meaning of the second sentence of the impugned provisions – which was an exception to the general rule – the Constitutional Court went on to clarify the meaning and purpose of the impugned provisions in so far as they applied to children aged five to seven. The Constitutional Court examined the drafting history of the impugned provisions and other provisions adopted in the context of the education reform. One of the aims of the relevant Amendments to the General Education Law of 21 June 2018 (see paragraph 52 below) was to introduce a competency-based approach to the curriculum at all levels of education. Those amendments had to be viewed together with the relevant Amendments to the Education Law of 22 March 2018 (see section 9(2)(2) of the Education Law as regards pre-school education, quoted in Valiullina and Others, cited above, § 59), which indicated that one of the stages of the education reform was the transformation of minority education programmes and the reform of the curriculum, in relation to pre-school education as well. However, the Constitutional Court noted that those changes did not mean that bilingual education had been abandoned (they referred to views expressed at parliamentary debates indicating that those amendments had been aimed at ensuring that all pupils had equal chances, that the bilingual education model had to be improved to keep up with the times, and that the bilingual education model had been maintained at pre-school level). The Constitutional Court concluded that those amendments had been made within the framework of the reform of the general education curriculum, and a competency-based curriculum had been created and implemented following that reform; the acquisition and use of the State language had been one of the main features of that curriculum. In order to implement a competency-based curriculum at pre-school level, the Cabinet of Ministers had adopted new pre-school education guidelines (Regulation no. 716 (2018)); they had been in effect as of 1 September 2019 (see paragraphs 53-54 below). Regulation no. 716 (2018) had ensured the transition from an unclear and fragmented education model in the previously applicable regulation (Regulation no. 533 (2012)) to a model in which the curriculum was implemented in a unified process. Namely, to provide competency-based education, a model had been introduced within which all areas of education, including languages, were taught systematically and in an integrated manner as part of the overall curriculum. In accordance with the second sentence of the impugned provisions, the main language of communication in play-based lessons for children aged five and over had to be Latvian. The Constitutional Court also emphasised that for children aged five to seven, teaching became more intensive, since it was at that age that they were being prepared for primary education. In line with a pre-school education programme developed by the National Centre for Education, in the area of languages, for example, one of the aims of the education programme for minorities was that a child would be able to ask and reply to short, simple questions about daily life in the State language. However, that did not mean that the requirement to use Latvian as the main language of communication in play-based lessons could be viewed in isolation from the rest of the legal framework, especially the general rule that a bilingual approach had to be used throughout pre-school. The Constitutional Court concluded that the second sentence of the impugned provisions aimed to establish new content for play-based lessons that corresponded to the common aims of the education reform. By strengthening the role of play‑based lessons in Latvian, the accessibility and acceptability of education was ensured, since every child was prepared for the next level of education. The applicants had alleged that teachers could not use a bilingual approach in respect of children aged five to seven, and the Constitutional Court found that allegation unsubstantiated. The Constitutional Court further emphasised that pre-school education had to ensure that every child, by the time he or she completed pre-school and started primary school, was able to acquire the content of the curriculum in the State language to the extent required by law for that level of education. This approach was in line with the findings of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child that high-quality, developmentally appropriate and culturally inclusive education programmes had a positive impact on young children’s successful transition to primary school (see paragraph 63 below). The competency-based education introduced by the impugned provisions and the use of the bilingual approach also ensured that education was accessible and acceptable to children belonging to a minority. As regards pre-school education, the option of using two or more languages had been preserved not only for children aged one and a half to five, but also children aged five to seven. The Constitutional Court then ascertained whether there was a mechanism by which changes in the quality of education could be determined; such changes had to be actively monitored (they referred to the judgment in case no. 2004-18-0106, summarised in Valiullina and Others, cited above, § 71). It found that the State had established a mechanism for monitoring the quality of education. (iii)   Training for teachers
33. As regards training for teachers, the Constitutional Court noted that since 1996 the Latvian Language Agency had offered free courses designed for teachers in minority schools and pre-schools who wished to improve their Latvian language skills. Since 1999 teachers had been required to have the highest degree of proficiency in the State language, and since 2013 that requirement had also applied to pre-school teaching assistants. Courses offered by the Latvian Language Agency had been further improved since 2015, and since 2018 a project entitled “A competency-based approach to the curriculum” had been in place, offering complex support measures for teachers – improving their Latvian language skills and professional ability to work in a linguistically heterogenous environment (see also Valiullina and Others, cited above, § 79). Measures to promote and increase the professional skills of teachers had been organised by the State in line with its budgetary resources, and also by involving municipal authorities. Thus, teachers had been provided with the necessary support measures. Whether they used the opportunities offered to them was a matter for them, bearing in mind that they had to meet certain requirements and be able to fulfil the task entrusted to them, namely educating children. Moreover, university education programmes for pre-school teachers had been adapted to meet the requirements of Regulation no. 716 (2018); a new study course called “Bilingualism and the basis of bilingual education” had also been designed. Practical traineeships were closely connected to the requirements of Regulation no. 716 (2018). Hence, the Constitutional Court concluded that the State had ensured an acceptable standard of education in that regard. There was no indication that the impugned provisions had led to a decrease in the quality of education in so far as its adaptability to the needs of children was concerned. However, the Constitutional Court emphasised that the State had a duty to monitor the quality of education on an ongoing basis, making effective use of the State’s quality control mechanism for the educational process to detect possible changes in the quality of education (it referred to the judgment in a case concerning private schools, see Džibuti and Others v. Latvia, nos. 225/20 and 2 others, § 37, 16 November 2023). (iv)  Right of parents to participate in the educational process
34. As to the right of parents to participate in the educational process, the Constitutional Court observed that the Education Law provided that both the public and parents could participate in that process. The public participated in the organisation and development of education by popularising all types of education, providing education and improving the quality of education, creating education programmes, protecting the rights and interests of pupils and teachers in the process of learning and teaching, and establishing educational and educational support institutions, associations and foundations (section 21(1) of the Education Law). Parents pursued their interests by participating in the work of councils attached to educational institutions, where parent representatives formed a majority; councils were authorised to submit proposals regarding the implementation of education programmes (section 31 of the Education Law). The Constitutional Court held that the impugned provisions ensured the applicants’ right to participate in the pre-school educational process. It also concluded that, when adopting the impugned provisions, the State had complied with the requirements of accessibility, adaptability and acceptability (availability was not contested). Given that Article 112 of the Constitution included an obligation to provide a unified education system in the State language, the Constitutional Court held that the right to receive an education in the State language was being ensured in minority pre-school educational institutions through the use of a bilingual approach in the study process. To ensure that right, the State had set appropriate pre-school education content which was compulsory. The Constitutional Court declared that the impugned provisions were compatible with the first sentence of Article 112 of the Constitution. (c)   Article 114 of the Constitution
35. As regards Article 114 of the Constitution, the applicants argued before the Constitutional Court that the impugned provisions restricted their right to learn and use Russian – their mother tongue – freely and without interference, and the right of children and parents to preserve their Russian ethnic, cultural and linguistic identity. At the same time, they admitted that pre-school education for children aged one and a half to five was based on a balanced bilingual approach, whose aim was to develop a child’s Russian and Latvian language skills in various fields of study equally. The applicants alleged that the right to use Russian was restricted in the second stage of pre‑school education for children aged five to seven, especially in day-to-day communication in a pre-school educational institution. Referring to its earlier case-law (the judgment in case no. 2004-18-0106, summarised in Valiullina and Others, cited above, § 70), the Constitutional Court held that Article 114 of the Constitution required positive action from the State to protect and ensure the right of minorities to preserve and develop their language and ethnic and cultural uniqueness; it examined the applicants’ arguments from the standpoint of the positive obligations contained in Article 114 of the Constitution. 36. The Constitutional Court reiterated that the impugned provisions provided for a bilingual approach in education as regards the first stage of pre-school education for children aged one and half to five, in that the provisions provided for the use of both the State language and a minority language in every area of education. Moreover, the Constitutional Court noted that the applicants in that case had not expressed any objections about this stage of pre-school education. Therefore, there was no dispute that the rights enshrined in Article 114 of the Constitution were being ensured as regards the first stage of pre-school education. The Constitutional Court then proceeded to examine the impugned provisions in so far as they related to the second stage of pre-school education for children aged five to seven. It reiterated that the use of a minority language in the educational process had to ensure not only the formal acquisition of that language, but also the development of the identity of a person belonging to that minority. Thus, a legal regulation that completely excluded the use of a minority language from the educational process or reduced it to the extent that the minority language was used as a language of instruction only in lessons where that language was being taught would not be compatible with Article 114 of the Constitution (they referred to the judgment in a case concerning private schools, summarised in Džibuti and Others, cited above, § 38). That said, the Constitutional Court held that when regulating the use of a language of instruction in pre-school educational institutions, the legislature had ensured the right of pupils belonging to the Russian minority to safeguard and develop their identity and culture. In accordance with the impugned provisions and other related provisions, pupils who belonged to the Russian minority could use Russian at the second stage of pre-school education when they were aged five to seven. Even though there was a different approach towards that stage of pre-school education, in that the education programme did not expressly provide for a bilingual approach, it nevertheless ensured that pupils who belonged to the Russian minority could learn Russian and learn about Russian culture. In accordance with the relevant provisions of Regulation no. 716, the implementation of the compulsory curriculum had to be planned and organised to include various events, such as those related to public holidays, annual customs, traditions and the acquisition of ethnic culture, in order to achieve the intended results of the compulsory curriculum. The Constitutional Court affirmed that the organisation of various events was also related to the above-mentioned planned learning outcomes relating to the acquisition of skills in minority music (folk songs), visual arts (illustrations by Russian artists for Russian folk tales), literature (Russian folk tales, short poems), and drama (the staging of fairy tales). In addition, the second sentence of the impugned provisions expressly provided that the main language of communication in play-based lessons was Latvian, with the exception of activities which had been organised to facilitate the acquisition of a minority language and learning about ethnic culture. That exception gave minority pre-school educational institutions a discretion as regards annual festivities or the preservation of traditions, for instance. In the instant case, for example, children could prepare for a holiday and celebrate Maslenitsa, Easter, the Day of Slavic Writing and Culture, and the Feast of Alphabet in Russian, and thus learn about and maintain Russian culture. Moreover, it also had to be taken into consideration that the concept of education also included educational activities outside the education system established by the State, such as minority Sunday schools or summer camps. This was in line with the findings of the Advisory Committee (the court referred to Thematic Commentary No. 1 on Education (ACFC/25DOC(2006)002), adopted on 2 March 2006 by the Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention). Thus, the applicants could strengthen their identity outside of the education system established by the State, for example by establishing their own ethnic and cultural centres or private weekend schools. 37. The Constitutional Court also examined recommendations by the Advisory Committee on the Framework Committee to the Latvian authorities “to continue their endeavours to ensure an appropriate bilingual curriculum at the level of pre-school education and provide adequate funding for quality teaching of the Latvian language in pre-schools” (some parts of the Executive Summary of the Third Opinion on Latvia of the Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention and the subsequent Resolution on the Implementation of the Framework Convention in Latvia adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe have been quoted in Valiullina and Others, cited above, §§ 89-91) and recommendations by United Nations Special Rapporteurs (referred to in paragraph 87 of the opinion issued by the European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission) entitled “On the recent amendments to the legislation on education in minority languages in Latvia”, quoted in Valiullina and Others, cited above, § 93). The court referred to a previous case concerning public schools and noted that there were no grounds to consider that under the Framework Convention, the State had to ensure the preservation and development of language and ethnic and cultural singularity by providing education only in a minority language or in line with certain proportions relating to its use within the State education system (see Valiullina and Others, cited above, § 52). In determining the most appropriate way to use the rights contained in Article 114 of the Constitution in conjunction with Article 14 of the Framework Convention, it was necessary to take into account the specific circumstances and historical context of society and the minority in question. The Advisory Committee also pointed out that the specific circumstances of each country had to be taken into account. It had also recognised that specific methods and instruments used in the States Parties could be adapted to the specific needs of the country, region or minority in question. As to the concerns raised by the United Nations Special Rapporteurs regarding Regulation no. 716, the Constitutional Court found that they did not have access to comprehensive information about the scope of that Regulation; the Constitutional Court explained the scope of that Regulation in its judgment. It found that the State, in regulating the use of language in pre-school educational institutions, had ensured the right of Russian minority pupils to preserve and develop their identity and culture in a way that corresponded to the conditions which characterised the Russian minority in the historical context of Latvia. In accordance with the impugned provisions and related provisions, pupils aged five to seven could use Russian during the second stage of pre-school education. For those reasons, the Constitutional Court declared that the impugned provisions were compatible with Article 114 of the Constitution. (d)   Articles 91 and 64 of the Constitution
(i)      Russian-speaking pupils compared with Latvian-speaking pupils
38. As regards the second sentence of Article 91 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court analysed an argument raised by the applicants, namely that as a result of the impugned provisions, children who received a pre‑school education in a minority language were subjected to a difference in treatment in comparison with children who received a pre-school education in Latvian. In this regard, the Constitutional Court referred to its conclusion in the judgment of 23 April 2019 in case no. 2018-12-01 and reiterated that pupils whose native language was not the State language were not in a comparable situation to pupils whose native language was (see Valiullina and Others, cited above, § 48). (ii)    Russian-speaking pupils with special needs compared with Russian-speaking pupils without special needs
39. Furthermore, the Constitutional Court analysed an argument raised by the applicants that the impugned provisions provided for the equal treatment of groups of persons who were in different situations, that is, children with special needs and children without special needs. The applicants had argued that, given their special needs, children with special needs should have the right to an education in their mother tongue. Referring to domestic and international material, it held that while Article 91 prohibited discriminatory treatment on the grounds of a child having special needs, it also included an obligation on the State to take additional measures in so far as possible to ensure that children with special needs were not prevented from exercising their fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution, including the right to education. In order to ensure the right to education for children with special needs, a separate target group was recognised in Latvia (persons with special needs), and special education programmes were created for them. Consequently, children with special needs were in a different situation from children without such needs; children with special needs required special care. In analysing whether the impugned treatment of those two groups of children complied with Article 91 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court established as follows. 40. At the outset, it noted that when assessing whether regulations issued by the Cabinet of Ministers complied with Article 64 of the Constitution (the legislative power) and Article 91 of the Constitution, it was necessary to examine several elements. Those elements included: (i) whether the legislature had given special authorisation to the Cabinet of Ministers to issue a regulation, and the fact that such authorisation had to be laid down in a statutory provision (likuma norma); (ii) the fact that regulations could not contradict the Constitution and other laws; (iii) the fact that regulations had to be published and sufficiently clearly formulated; and (iv) the fact that any equal or differential treatment had to be established during the process of creating legal provisions (tiesību normas) that complied with the principle of proper law-making (labas likumdošanas princips), a principle which applied not only to laws, but also regulations issued by the Cabinet of Ministers. 41. The Constitutional Court then proceeded to examine the applicants’ arguments as to whether: (i) the impugned provisions had been adopted within the limits of the authorisation given by the legislature; (ii) the impugned provisions had been adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in law; and (iii) the rights of minorities in relation to public participation had been respected in the law-making process. 42. As regards the limits of the authorisation, it held that within the framework of the education reform, the legislature had decided that a new concept should be introduced in Latvia, namely a competency-based curriculum. That curriculum also covered the regulation of the acquisition of the State language and other languages, so that from the first stage of the education system every pupil could acquire the State language at an appropriate level and subsequently use the opportunities provided by all levels of the education system. 43. As regards compliance with the domestic law, the Constitutional Court accepted one of the applicants’ arguments that the requirement to request and receive the approval of the Latvian National Commission for the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) had not been complied with in the process of adopting the impugned provisions. However, referring to its above conclusions that the State had ensured the right to education of children who belonged to minorities, as well as their right to preserve and develop their identity and culture (see paragraphs 35 and 37 above), there were no grounds to consider that the Cabinet of Ministers would have made a different decision even if the Latvian National Commission for UNESCO had been consulted about the draft regulation before it had been adopted. The Constitutional Court dismissed the applicants’ allegation that the relevant procedure for adopting the impugned provisions had not been followed, and therefore did not find a breach of the principle of proper law-making. 44. As regards the rights of minorities in relation to public participation, it noted that as early as 2014 a working group on “Opportunities for improving the pre-school education curriculum” had supported the acquisition of basic Latvian language skills at pre-school level. The working group had included representatives from various educational institutions (including pre-schools offering education programmes for minorities) and domestic authorities (including the Advisory Council for Minority Education, a body consisting of representatives from various minority educational establishments). As of 2016, experts from several pre-school educational institutions (including pre-schools offering education programmes for minorities) had been participating in the project entitled “A competency‑based approach to the curriculum”. The new approach and curriculum had been tested in several pre-schools in different regions of Latvia (including pre-schools offering education programmes for minorities). In 2018 the Advisory Council for the General Education Curriculum had been established, which included representatives from non-governmental organisations (For Mothers and Fathers, and the Latvian Autism Association) and from the education boards of the cities of Riga, Jelgava and Daugavpils (bodies in charge of implementing educational policy at municipal level). The Advisory Council had been consulted about the draft regulation, had discussed it and had agreed to proceed with it. Other elements of public participation had also been described in the annotation to the impugned regulation (several events had been organised in which pre-school teachers, heads of pre-schools, various experts in the field of education, and representatives from trade unions and parents’ associations could participate). Moreover, the draft regulation had been discussed at another Advisory Council called “Education for all”, and consequently it had been decided that the principles related to inclusive education should be included in the draft regulation. A public consultation (sabiedriskā apspriešana) had taken place from 25 September 2017 to 1 February 2018. About 11,400 experts had participated in that discussion, that is to say, more than a quarter of those working in the field of education, as well as children’s parents, representatives from public organisations, and other interested parties. The Constitutional Court reiterated that the principle of proper law-making in the area of the rights of minorities did not guarantee a particular outcome preferable to a group of persons (see Valiullina and Others, cited above, § 52). It concluded that the principle of proper law-making had been respected in the present case. This had been ensured by setting up working groups and councils, inviting experts to participate, carrying out other activities and announcing a public consultation. It could not be established that the applicants had taken the opportunity to take part in those consultations and express their views, or that they had been denied such an opportunity. The Constitutional Court concluded that the impugned provisions had been adopted in accordance with the procedure laid down in law and complied with Article 64 of the Constitution. 45. Furthermore, it assessed whether there was any legitimate aim of the equal treatment of persons in different circumstances. Reference was made to the need to respond to diversity and the need to promote the successful inclusion of children with special needs in the education system. Referring to international material (Article 23 § 1 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, quoted in paragraph 67 below, and General Comment no. 9 of the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child), the Constitutional Court noted that the measures taken in respect of children with special needs had to be aimed at maximum inclusion in society. The drafting material of the relevant Amendments to the General Education Law of 21 June 2018 indicated that the legislature had decided on issues related to the provision of education for children with special needs. Thus, extending the requirement to promote the acquisition of the Latvian language to children with special needs was aimed at including such children in the education system. The legitimate aim was the protection of the rights of other persons, that is, children with special needs. 46. The Constitutional Court also assessed proportionality. It concluded that the equal treatment of those two groups of persons was appropriate for the purposes of achieving the legitimate aim. Namely, it was not possible to achieve the legitimate aim as effectively by means of an alternative and less intrusive measure. It dismissed the applicants’ argument that pre-schools offering special education programmes for minorities should not be subject to the requirement to use the Latvian language. Children with special needs also had to have the opportunity to learn the State language. Otherwise, children with special needs would have little or no knowledge of the Latvian language after completing pre-school, and would find themselves even more exposed to exclusion and isolation from society. Thus, in the education of children with special needs, the use of only a child’s mother tongue at pre‑school education level would not achieve the legitimate aim as effectively. That said, observations made by one expert in the proceedings before the Constitutional Court had addressed the use of a bilingual approach in accordance with the individual abilities of each child. As the Constitutional Court had already established, that was one of the methods used throughout a child’s pre-school education. 47. The Constitutional Court emphasised that moreover, inclusive education was one of the rights enshrined in the Constitution, under Article 91 taken in conjunction with Article 112. Inclusive education was undoubtedly the aim of educating children with special needs. That meant not only formally applying the same requirements to all children, but also genuinely integrating children with special needs into the education system. The legislature had a positive obligation to ensure that children with special needs were not excluded from the general education system on the basis of language, among other things. The legislature had to prescribe the type and form of inclusion that would meet the individual educational needs of each child and promote his or her effective education to the greatest extent possible. The Constitutional Court referred to the principle of reasonable accommodation in this regard (they referred to Stoian v. Romania [Committee], no. 289/14, §§ 102-03, 25 June 2019, see also paragraph 158 below). Inclusive education was a set of values, principles and practices aimed at providing a meaningful, effective and high-quality education for all pupils, organised in such a way as to ensure the diversity of learning conditions and requirements. That goal could be achieved by various organisational means, while respecting the needs of the child. In Latvia, children with special needs may follow a special education programme: (i) a general education class; (ii) in a special class or group at a general educational institution; or (iii) in a special educational institution. Children with special needs may also be admitted to general education programmes. In such cases, appropriate support measures had to be made available (see paragraph 57 below). 48. The Constitutional Court proceeded to analyse the impugned regulation and other related provisions in detail, and concluded that they did not provide for the Latvian language to be used without regard for the special needs of children. On the contrary, at both stages of pre-school education, support, a special and individualised approach and treatment were to be provided to children with special needs in order to ensure that they received an education on an equal basis with other children. The individualised approach was also employed in ensuring access to the education system and the learning of Latvian. Therefore, although the legislature had provided for the equal treatment of children with special needs and children who did not have such needs in so far as the legitimate aim was concerned, in practice, the children were treated differently for the purposes of achieving that legitimate aim. Namely, positive measures were taken to ensure that children with special needs were integrated into the Latvian education system and therefore also society in the best possible way, by being taught how to master the Latvian language within the limits of their abilities. For those reasons, the Constitutional Court concluded that the impugned provisions were compatible with Article 91 of the Constitution. SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT
49. On 6 January 2023 the Court received a request by the applicants to indicate interim measures to the Government under Rule 39 of the Rules of Court to suspend the entry into force of the 2022 amendments (see paragraph 12 above). On 10 January 2023 the Court (the competent duty judge) decided that the applicants’ request was outside the scope of Rule 39. RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE
DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICEConstitutional provisions and provisions concerning the use of language in education

50. The relevant provisions of the Latvian Constitution (Satversme), the Education Law and the General Education Law, and domestic material on support measures provided for teachers and pupils have been quoted and/or summarised in Valiullina and Others (cited above, §§ 21-27, 57-61, 78-80). Provisions concerning pre-schools
51. Pre-school education is a level of education when multidimensional development of a child’s personality, strengthening of health and preparation for primary education take place (section 1 of the Education Law). From the age of five, children must be prepared for primary education (section 4 of the Education Law) and follow a pre-school education programme (section 201 of the General Education Law). Education in Latvia is therefore compulsory from the age of five. Although municipal authorities must ensure equal access to pre-school education for children from the age of one and a half (section 21(1) of the General Education Law), that stage of pre-school education is not compulsory in Latvia. 52. In accordance with section 20(1) of the General Education Law (as worded following the 21 June 2018 amendments), pre-school education programmes must prepare children for primary education. The content of such programmes should include personality development; mental, physical and social development; the development of skills such as initiative, curiosity, independence and creativity; the strengthening of health; psychological preparation for primary education; and the acquisition of basic skills relating to the use of the State language. The pre-school education programme is set to be completed by the age of seven (section 20(2) of the General Education Law). By legislative amendments of 14 May 2020, a new section (section 20(3)) was inserted into the General Education Law, providing that pre‑school educational institutions had to provide support for children who needed help in relation to learning Latvian, including children for whom Latvian was not their mother tongue. Under the same amendments, municipal authorities had to ensure that all pre-schools under their authority offered a pre-school education programme in the State language (section 21(2) of the General Education Law). This had to be done by 1 September 2021. 53. On 21 November 2018 the Cabinet of Ministers adopted Regulation no. 716 (2018) entitled “Regulation on State guidelines for pre-school education and model pre-school education programmes”, which replaced the previously applicable Regulation no. 533 (2012) (see paragraph 10 above). The new regulation was set to be effective as of 1 September 2019 (see Valiullina and Others, §§ 63-64, cited above). The objective of the pre-school education content was to produce a curious, creative and joyful child who led a healthy, safe and active life; acted independently; learned with interest and joy; and gained experience of himself or herself, others and the world through reciprocal interactions therein (paragraph 2 of Regulation no. 716 (2018)). The pre-school education content was to promote a child’s comprehensive development; develop his or her social and emotional skills, critical thinking and cooperation; ensure basic learning skills (in areas such as languages, social and civic skills, cultural awareness and the art of self-expression, natural science, mathematics, technology, health and physical activity); and prepare him or her for primary education (paragraph 3 of Regulation no. 716 (2018)). The content and process of pre-school education had to include values such as life, human dignity, freedom, family, work, nature, the Latvian language and the State of Latvia, and other values (paragraph 5 of Regulation no. 716 (2018)). 54. At the material time (from 1 September 2019 to 1 September 2023), Annex 2 of Regulation no. 716 (2018) contained a model for general pre‑school education programmes for minorities, and Annex 4 of the same Regulation contained a model for special pre-school education programmes for minorities. Both Annexes contained paragraph 9, which was worded as follows:
“Throughout [a child’s] pre-school education, the learning of the Latvian language must be facilitated by an integrated education process, using a bilingual approach that is implemented by teachers, specialists and other employees of the educational institutions, taking into account the development of the child, and the Latvian language must be used in day-to-day communication. From five years of age, the main language of communication for children in play-based lessons shall be the Latvian language, except when children take part in activities with the purpose of learning a minority language and [about] an ethnic culture.”
Provisions concerning inclusive education and education for children with special needs
55. Following legislative amendments introduced on 8 April 2021, section 3(1) of the Education Law now provides that everyone has the right to a quality and inclusive education. 56. By legislative amendments introduced on 14 May 2020, a new section (section 201(11)) was inserted into the General Education Law, providing that educational institutions had to assess the special needs of every child who started compulsory education on the pre-school education programme, in compliance with the methodology for assessing children’s special needs provided by the Cabinet of Ministers, and had to ensure the necessary support measures and assistance in teaching the content of the curriculum to children with special needs. That provision was set to be effective as of 1 September 2021. The Cabinet of Ministers adopted Regulation no. 453 (2021), which was also set to be effective as of 1 September 2021. In accordance with that regulation, a designated teacher had to assess the special needs of a child who had reached five years of age. In carrying out that assessment, the designated teacher assessed the child’s basic learning skills and his or her behaviour. If a specialist assessment (for example, an assessment by a psychologist or speech therapist) was necessary, it had to be carried out. 57. In accordance with section 51(1) of the General Education Law, children with special needs may follow a special education programme: (i) in a general education class; (ii) in a special class or group at a general educational institution; or (iii) in a special educational institution. Section 53(1) of the same Law provides that children with special needs may also be enrolled in general education programmes. Since 1 September 2020 the requirements for educational institutions to have children with special needs enrolled in their education programmes have been set out in Regulation no. 556 (2019) issued by the Cabinet of Ministers. Section 53(2) of the General Education Law provides that educational institutions must ensure the availability of appropriate support measures for children with special needs who have been enrolled in a general education programme. They must also draw up an individual learning plan for each enrolled child with special needs. The Constitutional Court’s right to decline to institute proceedings for lack of legal reasoning, and the requirements necessary for submitting a constitutional complaint
58. The relevant provisions of the Law on the Constitutional Court have been summarised in Ēcis v. Latvia (no. 12879/09, §§ 28-31, 10 January 2019). The Constitutional Court’ s ability to refuse to examine a case which has already been decided
59. The relevant provisions of the Law on the Constitutional Court have been summarised in Valiullina and Others (cited above, §§ 68-69). The Constitutional Court’s case-law concerning the language of instruction
60. The Constitutional Court’s judgment of 19 June 2020 in case no. 2019-20-03 as regards the language of instruction in public and private pre-schools has been summarised in paragraphs 25-48 above. 61. As regards the Constitutional Court’s case-law concerning the language of instruction in public schools and universities, see Valiullina and Others (cited above, §§ 44-54, 70-71, 75-77), and for private schools, see Džibuti and Others (cited above, §§ 29-43). INTERNATIONAL LAW AND PRACTICE
62. The relevant international and comparative material has been summarised in Valiullina and Others (cited above, §§ 81-96). As regards pre‑school education in particular, see the opinion issued by the Venice Commission (paragraphs 85-87 and 119 of that opinion quoted in Valiullina and Others, cited above, § 93) and the Hague Recommendations regarding the Education Rights of National Minorities (paragraph 11 of those recommendations quoted in Valiullina and Others, cited above, § 95). International material on early education
63. In General Comment no. 7 (2005) on implementing child rights in early childhood, published on 20 September 2006 (CRC/C/GC/7/Rev.1), the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child sought to encourage the States Parties to recognise that young children were holders of all rights enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, and that early childhood was a critical period for the realisation of those rights. In particular, the Committee stated as follows:
“3. Young children are rights holders. The Convention on the Rights of the Child defines a child as ‘every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier’ (art. 1). Consequently, young children are holders of all the rights enshrined in the Convention. They are entitled to special protection measures and, in accordance with their evolving capacities, the progressive exercise of their rights. The Committee is concerned that in implementing their obligations under the Convention, States parties have not given sufficient attention to young children as rights holders and to the laws, policies and programmes required to realize their rights during this distinct phase of their childhood. The Committee reaffirms that the Convention on the Rights of the Child is to be applied holistically in early childhood, taking account of the principle of the universality, indivisibility and interdependence of all human rights. 4. Definition of early childhood. Definitions of early childhood vary in different countries and regions, according to local traditions and the organization of primary school systems. In some countries, the transition from preschool to school occurs soon after 4 years old. In other countries, this transition takes place at around 7 years old. In its consideration of rights in early childhood, the Committee wishes to include all young children: at birth and throughout infancy; during the preschool years; as well as during the transition to school. Accordingly, the Committee proposes as an appropriate working definition of early childhood the period below the age of 8 years; States parties should review their obligations towards young children in the context of this definition.
... 15. A crucial role for parents and other primary caregivers. Under normal circumstances, a young child’s parents play a crucial role in the achievement of their rights, along with other members of family, extended family or community, including legal guardians, as appropriate. This is fully recognized within the Convention (especially article 5), along with the obligation on States parties to provide assistance, including quality childcare services (especially article 18). ... 16. Parents/primary caregivers and children’s best interests. The responsibility vested in parents and other primary caregivers is linked to the requirement that they act in children’s best interests. Article 5 states that parents’ role is to offer appropriate direction and guidance in ‘the exercise by the child of the rights in the ... Convention’. This applies equally to younger as to older children. Babies and infants are entirely dependent on others, but they are not passive recipients of care, direction and guidance. They are active social agents, who seek protection, nurturance and understanding from parents or other caregivers, which they require for their survival, growth and well-being. Newborn babies are able to recognize their parents (or other caregivers) very soon after birth, and they engage actively in non-verbal communication. Under normal circumstances, young children form strong mutual attachments with their parents or primary caregivers. These relationships offer children physical and emotional security, as well as consistent care and attention. Through these relationships children construct a personal identity and acquire culturally valued skills, knowledge and behaviours. In these ways, parents (and other caregivers) are normally the major conduit through which young children are able to realize their rights.
... 18. Respecting parental roles. Article 18 of the Convention reaffirms that parents or legal guardians have the primary responsibility for promoting children’s development and well-being, with the child’s best interests as their basic concern (arts. 18.1 and 27.2). States parties should respect the primacy of parents, mothers and fathers ... The Committee urges States parties to take all necessary steps to ensure that parents are able to take primary responsibility for their children; to support parents in fulfilling their responsibilities ...
... 28. Early childhood education. The Convention recognizes the right of the child to education, and primary education should be made compulsory and available free to all (art. 28). The Committee recognizes with appreciation that some States parties are planning to make one year of preschool education available and free of cost for all children. The Committee interprets the right to education during early childhood as beginning at birth and closely linked to young children’s right to maximum development (art. 6.2). Linking education to development is elaborated in article 29.1: ‘States parties agree that the education of the child shall be directed to: (a) the development of the child’s personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential’. General comment No. 1 on the aims of education explains that the goal is to ‘empower the child by developing his or her skills, learning and other capacities, human dignity, self-esteem and self-confidence’ and that this must be achieved in ways that are child-centred, child-friendly and reflect the rights and inherent dignity of the child (para. 2). States parties are reminded that children’s right to education include all children, and that girls should be enabled to participate in education, without discrimination of any kind (art. 2). 29. Parental and public responsibilities for early childhood education. The principle that parents (and other primary caregivers) are children’s first educators is well established and endorsed within the Convention’s emphasis on respect for the responsibilities of parents (sect. IV above). They are expected to provide appropriate direction and guidance to young children in the exercise of their rights, and provide an environment of reliable and affectionate relationships based on respect and understanding (art. 5). The Committee invites States parties to make this principle a starting point for planning early education, in two respects:
(a)  In providing appropriate assistance to parents in the performance of their child‑rearing responsibilities (art. 18.2), States parties should take all appropriate measures to enhance parents’ understanding of their role in their children’s early education, encourage child-rearing practices which are child-centred, encourage respect for the child’s dignity and provide opportunities for developing understanding, self‑esteem and self-confidence;
(b)  In planning for early childhood, States parties should at all times aim to provide programmes that complement the parents’ role and are developed as far as possible in partnership with parents, including through active cooperation between parents, professionals and others in developing ‘the child’s personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential’ (art. 29.1 (a)). 30. The Committee calls on States parties to ensure that all young children receive education in the broadest sense (as outlined in paragraph 28 above), which acknowledges a key role for parents, wider family and community, as well as the contribution of organized programmes of early childhood education provided by the State, the community or civil society institutions. Research evidence demonstrates the potential for quality education programmes to have a positive impact on young children’s successful transition to primary school, their educational progress and their long-term social adjustment. Many countries and regions now provide comprehensive early education starting at 4 years old, which in some countries is integrated with childcare for working parents. Acknowledging that traditional divisions between ‘care’ and ‘education’ services have not always been in children’s best interests, the concept of ‘Educare’ is sometimes used to signal a shift towards integrated services, and reinforces the recognition of the need for a coordinated, holistic, multisectoral approach to early childhood. 31. Community-based programmes. The Committee recommends that States parties support early childhood development programmes, including home- and community-based preschool programmes, in which the empowerment and education of parents (and other caregivers) are main features. States parties have a key role to play in providing a legislative framework for the provision of quality, adequately resourced services, and for ensuring that standards are tailored to the circumstances of particular groups and individuals and to the developmental priorities of particular age groups, from infancy through to transition into school. They are encouraged to construct high‑quality, developmentally appropriate and culturally relevant programmes and to achieve this by working with local communities rather by imposing a standardized approach to early childhood care and education. The Committee also recommends that States parties pay greater attention to, and actively support, a rights-based approach to early childhood programmes, including initiatives surrounding transition to primary school that ensure continuity and progression, in order to build children’s confidence, communication skills and enthusiasm for learning through their active involvement in, among others, planning activities.”
International material on early education specifically as regards Latvia
64. On 1 July 2016 Latvia deposited its instrument of accession to the Convention on the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), thereby becoming a full member of the OECD. As part of the process of Latvia’s accession to the OECD, the latter undertook a review of Latvia’s education policies and practices in comparison with OECD member countries. In 2016 the OECD published a report in that regard (OECD (2016), Education in Latvia, Reviews of National Policies for Education, OECD Publishing, Paris). The relevant parts of it read as follows (references omitted):
Chapter 2
Early childhood education and care in Latvia
Introduction
“High-quality early childhood education and care is positively associated with the cognitive, social and emotional development of children, and achievement among all children ... In Latvia early childhood education and care (ECEC) covers all institutional arrangements providing care and education for children under primary school age – 1 to 7 years of age. Some countries make a distinction between ‘child care’ – looking after children while their parents are at work – and ‘early education’ – enhancing child development and preparing children for formal schooling. In practise, the division is not clear, as there are opportunities to learn in settings labelled ‘care’ and ‘educational’ settings provide care for children. The use of the term ECEC supports an integrated and coherent approach to policy and provision which is inclusive of all children an all parents regardless of their employment or socio-economic status ... Although ECEC in Latvia is often referred to as ‘pre-school education’, which would suggest a primary focus on early education, it recognises that ECEC arrangements fulfil a wide range of objectives, including care, learning and social support. Most of today’s rising generation in Latvia will have spent part of their early childhood in some form of ECEC programme. After a period of contraction in the early 1990s, service provision began to recover later that decade and the recovery has continued ever since. Nowadays around 90% of 5- and 6-year-olds are enrolled in ECEC ... Still the transition to universal enrolment is incomplete as participation in ECEC, especially for children under the age of three, remains relatively low and unequal throughout the country. There are calls for greater investment in the quality of ECEC workforce and better monitoring of educational quality in general. Current government governance and financing arrangements also hamper equal access to high quality ECEC.
... Context and main features
Governance and financing
... To ensure a certain length of participation in ECEC programmes, many countries provide legal entitlements to ensure access to affordable, high-quality ECEC. Since 2011, all children in Latvia have had a legal entitlement to ECEC from 1.5 years of age. Latvia thus belongs to a small group of EU countries in which children have a legal entitlement to ECEC from a very early age, although in countries like Denmark, Finland and Sweden, entitlement starts earlier: from their first year onwards. In addition, since 2002 the last two years of ECEC, i.e. for children aged 5 and 6, have been compulsory in Latvia. In Latvia ECEC is defined comprehensively encompassing the cognitive, socio‑emotional and health development of the child. The Education Law ..., for example, states that ECEC, or ‘pre-school education’ as it is often referred to in Latvia, is ‘an education level in which multi-dimensional development of the child as an individual, in the strengthening of health and preparation for the acquisition of primary education takes place’ ...
...
 in Latvia, municipalities are obliged to ensure that children who have declared residence in the administrative territory of the municipality are able to access ECEC in the institution closest to their home. ECEC is largely the responsibility of municipalities. The founders of public ECEC institutions are municipalities, while private institutions can be founded by people or legal entities such as foundations and non-governmental organisations (NGO’s). Municipalities may establish an ECC institution upon the request of parents of at least ten children living in their administrative territory. In case of children with special needs this number is eight. Children are enrolled when parents have submitted all necessary documents and if there is a place available. Entrance tests are prohibited and parents and guardians are in principle free to choose among different types of ECEC institutions, i.e. those offering general programmes, programmes in minority languages (e.g. Russian or Polish), programmes for children with special education needs, and programmes for children with both special education needs and in minority languages. In reality, however, the low population density in some parts of the country may limit choices, despite municipalities providing free bus transportation to children in remote areas. In the larger cities, shortage of places similarly limits parents’ and guardians’ choices.
... As in many OECD countries, both parents and community members play an important role in the governments of ECEC institutions in Latvia, including through participating in school boards. For example, the school boards have a decision-making role in the rules governing the daily life in the ECEC institution, and have a consultative role on issues related to the choosing of educational content, methods and materials ...
... Organisation of ECEC services and learning
In Latvia integrated ECEC settings (pirmsskolas izglītības iestādes) are available to children from the age of 1.5 to 7 ... with no breaks or transfers between ECEC institutions until the start of primary school. All institutions and programmes fall under the responsibility of [the Ministry of Education and Science]. Such an integrated approach is rather uncommon among EU and OECD countries, and is mainly found in the Scandinavian countries ... There is some distinction between ECEC for very young children (1 to 4 years) and those about to enter primary education. As mentioned, from the age of 5 ECEC is compulsory and children have to follow a specific programme (pirmsskolas izglītības vadlīnijas) that is in accordance with the Guidelines for Pre-school Education ... The guidelines offer examples of programmes but teachers also have the right to develop their own programmes as long as they are in accordance with the guidelines ... It is also possible for children to receive their compulsory ECEC outside the integrated setting, for example in a primary school or another type of education centre (skolas un citas izglītības iestādes). Other service providers include day nurseries, playgroups, day care centres and institutions of interest- related education that provide activities for children under primary school age. ECEC programmes either follow the school model, grouping children together by age, or the family model, grouping children of different ages. It is also possible to group children according to the language of instruction which can be Latvian or a minority language, depending on the demands made by their parents. While most minority languages such as Polish play only a minor role in ECEC provision, a considerable share of children are taught in Russian: close to 22,000 children, about 23%, were enrolled in Russian language ECEC institutions in 2013 ... From the age of five, however, the Latvian language is a compulsory subject for children in ECEC. It is also possible for families to provide ECEC at home. For this, parents may receive pedagogical and methodological support at consultative ECEC centres. Municipalities are obliged to provide such support but not all are able to due to budgetary constraints, particularly the smaller ones. They therefore sometimes commission these services from institutions or individual specialists ... Whether parents’ demands for such support are fully met is not known.
... National ECEC curriculum
Having an explicit curriculum matters at all stages of education including ECEC. A well-defined curriculum articulates purposes, goals, learning content and approaches to learning, and takes into account the needs of all relevant stakeholders. Critical learning areas for young children include literacy, numeracy, science, information and communications technology (ICT), art and music, and physical and health development ... Curricula are influenced by many factors, including a society’s values, content standards, research findings, community expectations, culture and language.”
Comparative material on early education
65. In 2021/22, in most European education systems, compulsory education started at the beginning of primary education, often at the age of six. However, completing at least the last year of pre-primary education was compulsory in twenty-one education systems out of thirty-nine European education systems covering thirty-seven countries participating in the EU’s Erasmus+ programme (twenty-seven EU member States, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Iceland, Liechtenstein, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Norway, Serbia, Switzerland and Türkiye). France and Hungary reported the earliest starting age for compulsory education at the age of three. In Greece, Luxembourg and Switzerland, compulsory education started at the age of four. In Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Latvia, Malta, the Netherlands, Romania and Slovakia, it started at the age of five. In Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Serbia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and Türkiye, it started before or at the age of six. Estonia and Croatia reported the latest start of compulsory education at the age of seven (European Commission/EACEA/Eurydice, 2021. Compulsory Education in Europe – 2021/22. Eurydice Facts and Figures. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union). In other member States of the Council of Europe not covered above (Andorra, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova, San Marino, the United Kingdom and Ukraine), compulsory education started at the age of six, except for the United Kingdom (with regard to England, Scotland and Wales), where it started at the age of five, while in Northern Ireland, it started earlier for some children, at the age of four. Out of the countries in that group (Andorra, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova, San Marino, the United Kingdom and Ukraine), it appears that one year of pre-primary education was compulsory in Moldova and Ukraine. International material on children with disabilities
66. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities entered into force on 3 May 2008 and was signed by Latvia on 18 July 2008 and ratified on 1 March 2010. The relevant parts provide as follows:
Article 2 – Definitions
“For the purposes of the present Convention:
...
‘Reasonable accommodation’ means necessary and appropriate modification and adjustments not imposing a disproportionate or undue burden, where needed in a particular case, to ensure to persons with disabilities the enjoyment or exercise on an equal basis with others of all human rights and fundamental freedoms; ...”
Article 7 – Children with disabilities
“1. States Parties shall take all necessary measures to ensure the full enjoyment by children with disabilities of all human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis with other children. 2. In all actions concerning children with disabilities, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. 3. States Parties shall ensure that children with disabilities have the right to express their views freely on all matters affecting them, their views being given due weight in accordance with their age and maturity, on an equal basis with other children, and to be provided with disability and age-appropriate assistance to realize that right.”
Article 24 - Education
“1. States Parties recognize the right of persons with disabilities to education. With a view to realizing this right without discrimination and on the basis of equal opportunity, States Parties shall ensure an inclusive education system at all levels and life-long learning directed to:
a. The full development of human potential and sense of dignity and self-worth, and the strengthening of respect for human rights, fundamental freedoms and human diversity;
b. The development by persons with disabilities of their personality, talents and creativity, as well as their mental and physical abilities, to their fullest potential;
c. Enabling persons with disabilities to participate effectively in a free society. 2. In realizing this right, States Parties shall ensure that:
a. Persons with disabilities are not excluded from the general education system on the basis of disability, and that children with disabilities are not excluded from free and compulsory primary education, or from secondary education, on the basis of disability;
b. Persons with disabilities can access an inclusive, quality and free primary education and secondary education on an equal basis with others in the communities in which they live;
c. Reasonable accommodation of the individual’s requirements is provided;
d. Persons with disabilities receive the support required, within the general education system, to facilitate their effective education;
e. Effective individualized support measures are provided in environments that maximize academic and social development, consistent with the goal of full inclusion. 3. States Parties shall enable persons with disabilities to learn life and social development skills to facilitate their full and equal participation in education and as members of the community. To this end, States Parties shall take appropriate measures, including:
a. Facilitating the learning of Braille, alternative script, augmentative and alternative modes, means and formats of communication and orientation and mobility skills, and facilitating peer support and mentoring;
b. Facilitating the learning of sign language and the promotion of the linguistic identity of the deaf community;
c. Ensuring that the education of persons, and in particular children, who are blind, deaf or deafblind, is delivered in the most appropriate languages and modes and means of communication for the individual, and in environments which maximize academic and social development. 4. In order to help ensure the realization of this right, States Parties shall take appropriate measures to employ teachers, including teachers with disabilities, who are qualified in sign language and/or Braille, and to train professionals and staff who work at all levels of education. Such training shall incorporate disability awareness and the use of appropriate augmentative and alternative modes, means and formats of communication, educational techniques and materials to support persons with disabilities.
...”
67. The relevant parts of Article 23 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which entered into force on 2 September 1990 and was acceded to by Latvia on 14 April 1992, provide as follows:
“1. States Parties recognize that a mentally or physically disabled child should enjoy a full and decent life, in conditions which ensure dignity, promote self-reliance and facilitate the child’s active participation in the community. 2. States Parties recognize the right of the disabled child to special care and shall encourage and ensure the extension, subject to available resources, to the eligible child and those responsible for his or her care, of assistance for which application is made and which is appropriate to the child’s condition and to the circumstances of the parents or others caring for the child. 3. Recognizing the special needs of a disabled child, assistance extended in accordance with paragraph 2 of the present article shall be provided free of charge, whenever possible, taking into account the financial resources of the parents or others caring for the child, and shall be designed to ensure that the disabled child has effective access to and receives education, training, health care services, rehabilitation services, preparation for employment and recreation opportunities in a manner conducive to the child’s achieving the fullest possible social integration and individual development, including his or her cultural and spiritual development.
...”
THE LAW
JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS AND SCOPE OF THE CASE
68. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
69.

Outcome for Article 14: no_violation