FIFTH SECTION
CASE OF VALIULLINA AND OTHERS v. LATVIA
(Applications nos. 56928/19 and 2 others)
 
JUDGMENT
Art 14 (+ Art 2 P1) • Discrimination • Right to education • Non-discriminatory legislative amendments increasing the proportion of subjects taught in public schools in the only State language, Latvian, and thus reducing the use of Russian as the language of instruction • Russian-speaking and Latvian-speaking pupils in a relevantly similar situation • Impugned difference in treatment justified by the legitimate aims of protecting and strengthening the Latvian language - one of the State’s fundamental constitutional values - and ensuring the unity of the education system • Importance of specific historical context of unlawful occupation and annexation significantly restricting use of Latvian for more than fifty years as well as difficult choices following restoration of independence • Legislative amendments implemented gradually and flexibly, with sufficient scope for adaptation to the needs of those affected • Wide State margin of appreciation not overstepped • Education system in place ensured the use of minority languages in varying proportions • Objective and reasonable justification • Difference in treatment on grounds of language consistent with legitimate aims pursued and proportionate
Art 2 P1 • Ratione materiae • Application of conclusions drawn in “Belgian linguistic case” • Art 2 P1 does not include the right to access education in a particular language but only guarantees the right to education in one of the national or official languages of the country concerned • 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

 
STRASBOURG
14 September 2023
FINAL
 
19/02/2024
 
This judgment has become final under Article 44 § 2 of the Convention. It may be subject to editorial revision. Contents

INTRODUCTION
THE FACTS
I. GENERAL BACKGROUND TO THE CASE
A. Historical background
B. Overview of education reform
II. PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE
A. Family circumstances
B. Education pursued by the applicant children
C. The Constitutional Court’s review
III. SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT
RELEVANT LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND PRACTICE
I. DOMESTIC LAW AND PRACTICE
A. Constitutional provisions
B. The impugned legislative amendments
C. The Constitutional Court’s ability to refuse to examine a case which has already been decided
D. The Constitutional Court’s case-law
E. Other domestic material
II. INTERNATIONAL LAW AND PRACTICE
A. International treaties under the auspices of the United Nations
B. Reports by United Nations treaty bodies
C. Treaties within the Council of Europe
D. Reports and resolutions within the Council of Europe
E. Case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union
F. Recommendations adopted under the auspices of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (“OSCE”)
G. Comparative material
THE LAW
I. JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS AND SCOPE OF THE CASE
II. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 8 OF THE CONVENTION
A. The parties’ submissions on admissibility
B. The Court’s assessment on admissibility
III. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TO THE CONVENTION TAKEN ALONE
Admissibility
IV. ALLEGED VIOLATION OF ARTICLE 2 OF PROTOCOL No. 1 TAKEN IN CONJUNCTION WITH ARTICLE 14 OF THE CONVENTION
A. Admissibility
B. Merits
APPENDIX

 
 
In the case of Valiullina and Others v. Latvia,
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting as a Chamber composed of:
 Georges Ravarani, President,
 Carlo Ranzoni,
 Mārtiņš Mits,
 Stéphanie Mourou-Vikström,
 María Elósegui,
 Mattias Guyomar,
 Mykola Gnatovskyy, judges,
 and Victor Soloveytchik, Section Registrar,
Having regard to:
the applications (nos. 56928/19 and 2 others) 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 five Latvian nationals and five “permanently resident non-citizens” of Latvia (“the applicants”), on various dates indicated in the appended table;
the decision to give notice of the applications to the Latvian Government (“the Government”);
the parties’ observations;
Having deliberated in private on 11 July 2023,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on that date:
INTRODUCTION
1. The case concerns legislative amendments of 2018 (“the 2018 amendments” or “the 2018 reform”) whereby the proportion of subjects to be taught in the State language, that is, Latvian, was increased in public schools, and the use of Russian as the language of instruction was consequently reduced. The applicants relied on Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to 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 32-34 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. Ethnic groups and languages spoken in Latvia
6. The Latvian Constitutional Court in judgments of 13 May 2005 and 23 April 2019 (see paragraphs 45 and 70 below) and parties in the present case provided statistical data on the main ethnic groups in Latvia, on the basis of the population censuses of 1935, 1959, 1989 and 2011. (i)  In 1935 77% of the total population were ethnic Latvians, 8.8 % were ethnic Russians, 4.9% were ethnic Jews, 3.3% were ethnic Germans and 2.5% were ethnic Poles. Other ethnicities constituted less than 2% of the population. (ii)  In 1959 62% of the total population were ethnic Latvians, 26.6% were ethnic Russians, 2.9% were ethnic Belarusians and 2.9% were ethnic Poles. Other ethnicities constituted less than 2% of the population. (iii)  In 1989 52% of the total population were ethnic Latvians, 34% were ethnic Russians, 4.5% were ethnic Belarusians, 3.5% were ethnic Ukrainians and 2.3% were ethnic Poles. Other ethnicities constituted less than 2% of the population. (iv)  In 2011 62.1% of the total population were ethnic Latvians, 26.9% were ethnic Russians, 3.3% were ethnic Belarusians, 2.2% were ethnic Ukrainians and 2.2% were ethnic Poles. Other ethnicities constituted less than 2% of the population. 7. According to the Government, during the Soviet occupation of Latvia, migrants in large numbers from territories of the other former USSR republics arrived in Latvia. In 1951-90 immigration rates exceeded emigration rates in Latvia, and during certain periods, the increase in migration was one of the highest in the world (the Constitutional Court also referred to such statistical data in case no. 2018-12-01). Consequently, during the Soviet occupation of Latvia, the proportion of people of Latvian ethnicity decreased significantly. 8. The applicants provided further information about the use of Latvian and Russian, on the basis of the population censuses of 1970, 1989, 2000 and 2011 in Latvia:
(i)  in 1970 64.4% of the total population spoke Latvian, while 66.86% spoke Russian;
(ii)  in 1989 61.69% of the total population spoke Latvian, while 81.23% spoke Russian;
(iii)  in 2000 72.02% of the total population spoke Latvian, while 81.19% spoke Russian;
(iv)  in 2011 62.07% of the total population used Latvian within the family, and 37.23% used Russian. On the basis of the results of the latest population census in 2011, the applicants concluded that a large proportion of minorities who were not ethnic Russians also used Russian within the family. 9. The applicants also submitted statistical data on minority groups’ knowledge of Latvian. They relied on the population census of 1989 and 2000:
(i)  in 1989 20.3% of people who were not ethnic Latvians knew Latvian;
(ii)  in 2000 49.2% of people who were not ethnic Latvians knew Latvian. 10. Further comprehensive data from the population censuses were not available – since the 2011 population census, a wider question about knowledge of languages had been replaced with a question about which language was used within the family (see paragraph 8 above). The applicants relied, among others, on a survey carried out in 2014 (with 801 randomly selected adult participants from minority groups), the results of which were as follows: 20.7% of the participants rated their knowledge of Latvian as very good, 27.6% rated it as good, 27.5% rated it as satisfactory, 18.8% rated it as poor, 4.2% had little or no knowledge of it, and 1.2% found it difficult to say. Overview in field of education
11. According to the Government, because of the migration organised by the USSR as the occupying power, the use of languages became a significant political issue. Although many migrants arriving in Latvia from other former USSR territories were not of Russian ethnicity, the only language in which they communicated in Latvia was Russian. During Latvia’s occupation by the USSR, the issue of communication was resolved by imposing vast “Russification” policies that established the Russian language as the language for daily communication without any restrictions, and by imposing its use in State institutions and schools. In the field of education, Russification was achieved by paying special attention to teaching Russian in schools which had Latvian as the language of instruction, and by establishing schools which had Russian as the only language of instruction, thereby creating a segregated education system (the Constitutional Court also referred to this information in case no. 2018-12-01). 12. According to the applicants, public schools which taught in Russian had existed alongside Latvian schools for the last 100 years, that is, even before the Soviet period. During that time, Latvian had been a compulsory subject in Russian schools, in the same way that Russian had been compulsory in Latvian schools. They considered that in Soviet times there had been a “parallel” education system of Russian and Latvian schools. They alleged that people who had attended Latvian schools continued to demonstrate an excellent knowledge of Russian. However, when Russian had become an optional subject in Latvian schools, knowledge of it among the Latvian youth had deteriorated. Overview of education reform
13. After the restoration of Latvia’s independence, in order to promote the use of Latvian as the official language of the State and to facilitate integration, Latvia started to gradually implement an education reform by increasing how much Latvian was used as the language of instruction in educational programmes for minorities. Historical overview (1991-2015)
14. On 19 June 1991 the Supreme Council (Augstākā Padome) enacted the Law on Education, which stated that everyone had the right to receive an education in the State language (section 5), that is, in Latvian. However, the language of instruction in public schools continued to be Latvian or Russian, which was a practice inherited from Soviet times. 15. On 10 August 1995 the Law on Education was amended with a view to gradually introducing teaching in Latvian in schools where the language of instruction was not Latvian. The Law provided that starting from the 1996/1997 school year, in classes one to nine, at least two subjects had to be taught in the State language, that is, Latvian, and in classes ten to twelve, at least three subjects had to be taught in Latvian. 16. On 29 October 1998 Parliament adopted a new Education Law, which took effect on 1 June 1999, aiming to establish a unified education system. The Law provided that the only language of instruction in all public schools would be the State language, that is, Latvian. It also provided that the language of instruction might be different in private schools, in public schools implementing minority education programmes, and in other educational establishments as provided for by law. As regards public schools implementing minority education programmes, it was for the Ministry of Education to set out specific subjects to be taught in the State language (section 9(1) and (2)). At the same time, everyone had to learn the State language and take the State language proficiency test in order to complete their primary and secondary education (section 9(3)). 17. Schools that had previously taught in a minority language had the right to choose one of the education programmes adopted by the domestic authorities, depending on their pupils’ knowledge of Latvian. According to the applicants, these “minority schools” had the right to use their own educational programmes and a free choice as regards how much a particular language was used in teaching. According to the Government, all schools that chose to implement minority education programmes in classes one to nine completed that stage of the education reform by 2002. 18. Furthermore, in accordance with the transitional provisions of the Education Law, from 1 September 2004 onwards all public secondary schools had to ensure instruction in the State language for pupils enrolled in class ten (paragraph 9, part 3 of the transitional provisions). 19. After several sizable meetings and demonstrations against the education reform in 2003 and 2004, Parliament adopted amendments to the Education Law on 5 February 2004. 20. Following those amendments, from 1 September 2004 (the 2004/2005 school year) onwards all public secondary schools implementing educational programmes for minorities had to ensure instruction in the State language for pupils enrolled in class ten, in accordance with the general standard on secondary education set by the State. That standard specified that no less than three-fifths (60%) of the curriculum, including foreign languages, had to be taught in the State language; however, a curriculum relating to a minority language, identity and culture had to be taught in the minority language (paragraph 9, part 3 of the transitional provisions). It followed that in the 2005/2006 school year pupils enrolled in classes ten and eleven were affected by these changes, and in the 2006/2007 school year all pupils enrolled in secondary school (classes ten, eleven and twelve) were affected. According to the Government, this essentially prolonged the transitional period by three years. Impugned legislative amendments
21. The impugned legislative amendments to the relevant provisions of the Education Law and the General Education Law were passed on 22 March 2018. They provided that the proportion of subjects to be taught in the State language, that is, Latvian, was to be increased in public schools. Some exceptions were provided for schools established in accordance with international agreements, as well as schools providing instruction in official languages of the European Union (EU), in order to ensure the learning of those languages (see paragraph 59 below). 22. According to the Annotation to the 2018 amendments, they had been prepared to ensure implementation of the principle of the use of the State language in education. Those amendments complied with the National Development Plan of Latvia for years 2014-2020 (approved by Parliament in 2012). That plan had set goals and objectives of the State language policy. It had emphasised the need to increase the use of Latvian in society and strengthen the position of Latvian in everyday communication. There had also been the need to expand the possibilities of integration in the society by developing attractive forms of learning of the Latvian language. The creation of a modern, coordinated learning system of the Latvian language for children and adults, promoting the use of the Latvian language in society, had also been set as a priority. The impugned amendments were also designed to ensure a legal basis for the implementation of the curriculum and foreign language integrated learning approach in general education institutions. (a)   Public primary and secondary schools
23. In accordance with those legislative amendments, over a transitional period from 1 September 2019 (the 2019/2020 school year) to 1 September 2021 (the 2021/2022 school year) the following changes relating to how much teaching was in the official language of the State were to be implemented:
(i)  no less than 50% of the teaching should be in Latvian in classes one to six;
(ii)  no less than 80% of the teaching should be in Latvian in classes seven to nine;
(iii)  100% of the teaching should be in Latvian in classes ten to twelve. 24. In addition to those requirements, primary schools were authorised to combine a primary education programme with a minority education programme by including a minority language and other subjects related to minority identity and the integration of minorities into Latvian society. 25. However, secondary schools were no longer authorised to combine a secondary education programme with an education programme for minorities. Instead, they were authorised to include subjects linked to minority languages, and minority identity and the integration of minorities into Latvian society. In particular, from 1 September 2020 onwards secondary schools were authorised to offer a specialised minority language and literature course, and other specialised subjects related to minority languages, identity, and culture. 26. These changes were introduced gradually:
(i)  2019/2020 school year: no less than 50% of the teaching was to be in Latvian for classes one to six, and no less than 80% of the teaching was to be in Latvian for class seven only;
(ii)  2020/2021 school year: no less than 80% of the teaching was to be in Latvian for class eight as well, and 100% of the teaching was to be in Latvian for classes ten to eleven only;
(iii)  2021/2022 school year: no less than 80% of the teaching was to be in Latvian for class nine as well, and, in addition, 100% of the teaching was to be in Latvian for class twelve. (b)   Private primary and secondary schools
27. The above-mentioned requirements were also applicable to private primary and secondary schools (see paragraph 59 below), which had until then enjoyed a broader discretion in choosing the language of instruction (see paragraphs 16-17 above). (c)   Pre-schools
28. In accordance with Regulation no. 716 (issued on 21 November 2018), from 1 September 2019 onwards, in pre-schools for children from the age of five, the main language of communication during play-based lessons was set to be Latvian, except for special activities related to learning minority languages and learning about ethnic cultures (see paragraph 64 below). For younger children, daily Latvian lessons were envisaged. (d)   Universities
29. Following the legislative amendments to the Law on Higher Educational Institutions passed on 21 June 2018, the official language of the State also had to be used in higher education, with some exceptions (see paragraph 65 below). The changes were effective as of 1 January 2019. 30. This rule was not applicable to two higher education institutions established by international agreements with other countries. Their operation was governed by special laws, allowing them to offer courses of study in English or, in some circumstances, another official language of the European Union (see paragraphs 77-78 of the preliminary ruling quoted in paragraph 94 below). Subsequent legislative amendments
31. On 29 September 2022 Parliament passed further legislative amendments to the relevant provisions of the Education Law and the General Education Law. Those amendments provided that all schools at pre-school and primary level had to ensure instruction in the official language of the State over a transitional period from 1 September 2023 to 1 September 2025. At the same time, municipal authorities were tasked with ensuring that pupils belonging to minorities could learn their language and preserve their culture through extracurricular educational programmes which were free of charge. The State also had to participate in financing these educational programmes (including by financing teachers’ remuneration and study materials), within the limits set by the Cabinet of Ministers. PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASEFamily circumstancesValiullina and Truši (application no. 56928/19)

32. The first applicant is the mother of the second, third and fourth applicants. The first applicant was born in Kazan, Russia, and the other applicants were born in Latvia. They are all “permanently resident non‑citizens” of Latvia. The family consider themselves ethnically mixed – the first applicant submits that she is an ethnic Tatar. The second, third and fourth applicants present themselves as ethnic Russians. Russian is the main language used within the family. Neronovas (application no. 7306/20)
33. The fifth applicant is the mother of the sixth and seventh applicants. All the applicants were born in Latvia and consider themselves ethnic Russians. They are all Latvian citizens. Russian is the main language used within the family. Raizere-Rubcova and Rubcovas (application no. 11937/20)
34. The eighth applicant is the mother of the ninth and tenth applicants. All the applicants were born in Latvia. The eighth applicant is a “permanently resident non-citizen” of Latvia. The ninth and tenth applicants are Latvian citizens. The family consider themselves ethnically mixed – the eighth applicant submits that she is an ethnic German. The ninth and tenth applicants present themselves as ethnic Russians. Russian is the main language used within the family. Education pursued by the applicant childrenValiullina and Truši (application no. 56928/19)

35. During the 2019/2020 school year the second, third and fourth applicants were in class three at two different public schools. In the 2020/2021 and 2021/2022 school years they were in classes four and five. Since 1 September 2022 they have all been in class six at the same public school. They have been receiving an education in accordance with the primary education programme for minorities (mazākumtautību izglītības programma pamatizglītības pakāpē). 36. In the school attended by the second applicant, from 1 September 2019 onwards the curriculum was as follows. In class three, out of 24 weekly lessons, 15 were in Latvian and 9 were in the minority language (Minority Language and Maths lessons). In class four, out of 26 weekly lessons, 17 were in Latvian and 9 were in the minority language (Minority Language, Literature and Maths lessons). More complex subjects could also be taught bilingually in classes three and four (Natural Science lessons). In class five, out of 28 weekly lessons, 16 were in Latvian and 12 were in the minority language (Minority Language, Maths, Computer Science and Literature lessons). It follows that Latvian was used as the language of instruction approximately 63% of the time in class three, 65% of the time in class four, and 57% in class five. 37. In the school attended by the third and fourth applicants, the curriculum was similar. In class three, out of 24 weekly lessons, 12 were in Latvian and 12 were in the minority language (Minority Language, Maths, Natural Science and Social Science lessons). In class four, out of 26 weekly lessons, 15 were in Latvian and 11 were in the minority language (Minority Language, Maths, Natural Science and Literature lessons). In class five, out of 28 weekly lessons, 16 were in Latvian and 12 were in the minority language (Minority Language, Maths, Computer Science and Literature lessons). In class six, out of 30 weekly lessons, 16 were in Latvian and 14 were in the minority language (Minority Language, Maths, Computer Science, Latvian History, World History and Literature lessons). It follows that Latvian was used as the language of instruction approximately 50% of the time in class three, 58% of the time in class four, 57% of the time in class five, and 53% of the time in class six. Neronovas (application no. 7306/20)
38. In the 2019/2020 school year the sixth and seventh applicants were at a public school, in classes seven and three respectively. In the 2020/2021, 2021/2022 and 2022/2023 school years the sixth applicant was in classes eight, nine and ten, and the seventh applicant was in classes four, five and six. They received an education in accordance with the primary educational programme for minorities; the sixth applicant subsequently received a secondary education where 100% of the teaching was in Latvian. 39. In the school attended by the sixth applicant, from 1 September 2019 onwards the curriculum was as follows. In class seven, out of 32 weekly lessons, 27 were in Latvian and 5 were in the minority language (Minority Language and Literature lessons). From 1 September 2020 onwards, in class eight, out of 34 weekly lessons, 30 were in Latvian and 4 were in the minority language (Minority Language and Literature lessons). From 1 September 2021 onwards, in class nine, out of 34 weekly lessons, 31 were in Latvian and 3 were in the minority language (Minority Language and Literature lessons). More complex subjects could also be taught bilingually (Foreign Language, History and Chemistry lessons). It follows that Latvian was used as the language of instruction approximately 84% of the time in class seven, 88% of the time in class eight, and 91% of the time in class nine. 40. In the school attended by the seventh applicant, the curriculum was similar to that of the second, third and fourth applicants (see paragraphs 36‑37 above), but more emphasis was placed on bilingual lessons. Raizere-Rubcova and Rubcovas (application no. 11937/20)
41. In the 2019/2020 school year the ninth applicant was enrolled in class five of a public school in Latvia, but did not fully attend. On 8 November 2019 her mother informed the school that the ninth applicant would no longer attend school and would instead follow a distance-learning programme based at a private school in Russia. She asked for her daughter not to be excluded from the school and for her place to be kept for the next school year. According to the applicants, in the 2020/2021 school year the ninth applicant pursued her studies through the distance-learning programme based in Russia. According to the Government, she remained enrolled in class six in Latvia. 42. In the 2019/2020 school year the tenth applicant was in class one at a public school in Latvia. In the 2020/2021 and 2021/2022 school years she was in classes two and three. She received an education in accordance with the primary educational programme for minorities. On an unspecified date the tenth applicant was also enrolled in a distance-learning programme based at a private school in Russia. 43. In the school attended by the tenth applicant, from 1 September 2019 onwards the curriculum was as follows. In class one, out of 22 weekly lessons, 11 were in Latvian and 11 were in the minority language or bilingual (Minority Language, Maths, Natural Science and Social Science lessons). In class two, out of 23 weekly lessons, 12 were in Latvian and 11 were in the minority language or bilingual (Minority Language, Maths and Natural Science lessons). In class three, out of 24 weekly lessons, 13 were in Latvian and 11 were in the minority language or bilingual (Minority Language, Maths and Natural Science lessons). It follows that Latvian was used as the language of instruction approximately 50% of the time in class one, 52% of the time in class two, and 54% of the time in class three. The Constitutional Court’s reviewApplication to the Constitutional Court

44. The domestic legislation concerning the language of instruction in public primary and secondary schools was reviewed by the Constitutional Court (Satversmes tiesa) in proceedings instituted by twenty members of parliament (case no. 2018-12-01). The Constitutional Court’s judgment
45. On 23 April 2019 the Constitutional Court adopted its judgment. It examined the compatibility of the 2018 amendments with Article 112 of the Constitution (Satversme) (the right to education), the second sentence of Article 91 (the principle of non-discrimination), and Article 114 (the rights of minorities). In those proceedings, the Constitutional Court was not called upon to address the compatibility of the impugned legislative amendments with Article 96 of the Constitution (the right to private life) or Article 110 of the Constitution (the right to family life), or Article 8 of the Convention, as the parties had not raised any complaints in that regard. In so far as the contested domestic provisions related to the language of instruction in private schools, the Constitutional Court decided, for the sake of efficiency, to examine those issues in a separate case no. 2018-22-01 (see paragraph 73 below). 46. As regards Article 112 (the right to education), the Constitutional Court concluded that it required the State to establish and maintain an education system that would ensure that each and every pupil had the benefit of an education. The mandatory nature of primary education, established in the third sentence of Article 112 of the Constitution, which was based on an educated person being able to obtain information independently, to reason, to think critically and to adopt rational decisions, followed from the principle of a democratic State governed by the rule of law. Education was one of the prerequisites for a person’s choice to continue his or her self-improvement throughout his or her lifetime. Hence, education was one of the most important preconditions for consolidating a free and democratic society. The aim of Latvia’s system of education was enshrined in section 2 of the Education Law, which provided for every resident of Latvia having the opportunity to develop his or her mental and physical potential, in order to become an independent and fully developed individual, and a member of the democratic State of Latvia and its society. That aim – to ensure pupils’ right to receive such an education and have an upbringing that would allow them to develop and reinforce their feeling of affiliation with Latvia – was recognised by the Constitutional Court as being compatible with the interests of not only the pupils themselves, but those of society in general. At the same time, the Constitutional Court held that the right to education as guaranteed in Article 112 of the Constitution did not comprise the right of pupils or their parents to choose the language of instruction in public schools if that contradicted the principle of unity of the education system and did not facilitate equal access for pupils to the State education system which allowed them to achieve the objectives set by the education system. The Constitutional Court further concluded that Article 112 of the Constitution did not require the State to ensure that, in addition to the official language, it was possible to receive an education in another language in a proportion which pupils and their parents desired at primary and secondary level. The Constitutional Court held that within the framework of a unified education system, the State had ensured the right to receive an education in the official language in public schools, as required by Article 112 of the Constitution, which obliged the State to create an education system that was available, accessible, acceptable and adaptable. The Constitutional Court concluded that there was no proof that the contested provisions of the domestic legal framework that governed the language of instruction in schools affected the right to education as enshrined in Article 112 of the Constitution. For this reason, the Constitutional Court terminated the part of the proceedings concerning the compatibility of the 2018 amendments with Article 112 of the Constitution. 47. As regards the second sentence of Article 91 of the Constitution (the principle of non‑discrimination), the Constitutional Court concluded that the groups of persons identified by the twenty members of parliament in those proceedings – pupils whose native language was Latvian, the official language; pupils whose native language was another language; pupils who received an education in an EU language; and pupils who received an education in accordance with the bilateral or multilateral treaties which Latvia had concluded in the field of education – were not, for the purposes of an analysis of possible differential treatment and discrimination, in a comparable situation to pupils who acquired an education through the minority education programmes in Latvia. The court based its conclusion on the following reasons. 48. Firstly, the Constitutional Court held that pupils whose native language was not the State language of Latvia, but another language, were not in a comparable situation to those pupils whose native language was the State language. That conclusion was based on the constitutional status and significance of the Latvian language for the functioning of the democratic State. It relied on the preamble to and Article 4 of the Constitution, and its earlier case-law (case no. 2001-04-0103, quoted in Mentzen v. Latvia (dec.), no. 71074/01, ECHR 2004-XII). It also relied on the fact that neither the Constitution nor binding norms of international law imposed an obligation on the State to ensure that pupils could use a language that was not the State language as a language of instruction in a proportion which they desired. Instead, there was an obligation for the State to create an education system that would facilitate inclusion and integration, and would eliminate the consequences of the segregated education system that had existed during Latvia’s occupation by the USSR. 49. Secondly, the Constitutional Court held that in Latvia, pupils who received an education and acquired, inter alia, an in-depth knowledge of one of the official languages of the EU, were not in a comparable situation to pupils who chose to receive a general education in an educational institution that implemented an educational programme for minorities. In this regard, the Constitutional Court reiterated that the study of official languages of the EU was an objective for Latvia that derived from the preamble to the Constitution and the principle of good faith provided for under international law. Namely, the Constitutional Court emphasised that unlike the educational programmes for minorities, the opportunity to receive an education in one of the official languages of the EU had been created in order to facilitate the in-depth learning of foreign languages, and not to safeguard the culture and identity of a respective group of individuals. This related to educational institutions such as the Riga French Lycée, the Riga English Grammar School and the Grammar School of Nordic Languages. 50. Thirdly, the Constitutional Court held that in Latvia, pupils who received an education in schools which implemented the educational programmes for minorities in accordance with the bilateral or multilateral agreements concluded by Latvia in the field of education were not in a comparable situation to pupils who chose to receive a general education in an educational institution that implemented an educational programme for minorities. In this case, the following international agreements were relevant: agreements with Israel (in 1994), Estonia and Lithuania (in 1998), Belarus (in 2004), Poland (in 2006), and Ukraine (in 2017). With the aim of developing and safeguarding ethnic, cultural and linguistic identity, by concluding those agreements, the parties had committed themselves to ensuring that minorities living in the territory of Latvia could be taught about their mother tongue, history and culture, and could receive an education in their mother tongue in accordance with the education system in Latvia. None of those agreements provided for persons in Latvia who belonged to minorities having the right to use a particular minority language as a language of instruction in education in a proportion that was different from the one specified in the Education Law. 51. In the light of the above, the Constitutional Court held that pupils who received an education in accordance with an education programme for minorities were not in a comparable situation to the above-mentioned groups of persons for the purposes of an analysis of possible differential treatment and discrimination. Thus, the Constitutional Court declared that the contested provisions of the domestic legal framework were compatible with the second sentence of Article 91 of the Constitution (the principle of non‑discrimination). 52. As regards Article 114 of the Constitution (the rights of minorities), the Constitutional Court firstly assessed the scope of the rights of minorities under the Constitution and the protection afforded to minorities under international law. It referred, for example, to the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (“the Framework Convention”) and reports made by treaty bodies, for example, the Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention and the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (see paragraphs 84 and 89 below). It noted that there were no grounds to consider that under the Framework Convention the State had to ensure such form of preserving and developing the language, ethnic and cultural singularity as acquiring education in the minority language or in certain proportion without taking into account the national constitutional system. It then went on to examine whether the principle of good legislation had been complied with and concluded that it had been. The proposed amendments had been discussed within the Advisory Council for Minority Education (consisting of representatives of various minority educational establishments). They had also been discussed at the sessions of the relevant Parliamentary Committee, which had heard the views of the Minster for Education and Science, as well as representatives of several other ministries, the representative of the Saeima Legal Bureau, the Ombudsman’s representative, as well as other social partners, representatives of the sector and parents’ representatives. Various proposals had been examined and voted on. The impugned amendments had been passed in Parliament at three readings. The Constitutional Court emphasised that the principle of good legislation, inter alia, in the area of the rights of minorities, did not guarantee a particular outcome preferable to a group of persons; however, it ensured that the particular matter was democratically debated – different opinions were expressed and analysed – and the best possible balance between various conflicting rights and interests was found. 53. As to the question of whether the State had ensured the substance of the rights of minorities within its education system, the Constitutional Court noted that even after the restoration of Latvia’s independence, the Russian language had continued to be widely used in society. Content in Russian was available in the cinema, on television and in the press. No other minorities in Latvia were in such a situation. Some parties to the proceedings expressed the view that Russian was a self-sufficient language – that it was possible to use only Russian in daily life in Latvia, without having any knowledge of the State language. The Constitutional Court held that the State had an obligation to create preconditions for the participation of minorities in a public debate inherent in a democratic society. At the same time, members of minority groups should take the initiative to participate in such discourse in the State language. The Constitutional Court stated that every person who permanently resided in Latvia had to have a level of Latvian which allowed his or her full participation in the life of a democratic society (it referred, inter alia, to case no. 2001-04-0103, paragraph 3.2., quoted in Mentzen, cited above). A precondition for the existence and successful operation of a democratic State governed by the rule of law was the existence of members of society who understood and respected the values on which the Constitution was based. Referring to the preamble to the Framework Convention, the Constitutional Court emphasised that alongside the State’s obligations, the principle of mutual enrichment of a democratic society required that each and every person’s actions be directed towards the enrichment of society. In order to facilitate the mutual enrichment of society, Article 114 of the Constitution required that these principles be implemented in the field of education, like in any other aspect of a democratic society. Namely, the State had to safeguard, respect and ensure the development of the cultural uniqueness of minorities within the framework of a unified education system by facilitating the development of a common identity of a democratic society, and not by contrasting the rights of minorities with the common interests of society. The State’s obligation was to ensure that people had an opportunity to receive an education that reinforced the common identity of a democratic society. It was the obligation of a democratic State governed by the rule of law to ensure that the rights of each person were respected and to create a harmonious framework for the development of a free and educated personality. The right contained in Article 114 of the Constitution was only one element of this framework, that had to be balanced with the general values of society and its constitutional foundations. The Constitutional Court held that it had not been shown that the impugned amendments prohibited persons belonging to minorities from exercising their rights. Namely, the education system created by the State provided for content which ensured the opportunity to learn a minority language and preserve minority culture and identity, and also created equal opportunities for pupils belonging to minorities to become fully-fledged members of Latvia’s society. The impugned amendments also did not restrict the ability of pupils belonging to minorities to safeguard and maintain their language and ethnic and cultural identity. 54. Thus, the Constitutional Court held that the contested legal provisions were compatible with Article 114 of the Constitution (the rights of minorities). 55. Judge Neimanis expressed a separate opinion, disagreeing with the majority on the following points. Firstly, he considered that the issues relating to private schools had to be examined in the same case. Secondly, in his view, since minority rights had not been affected by the impugned legislative amendments, the part of the proceedings concerning the amendments’ compliance with Article 114 of the Constitution should also have been terminated. SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENT
56. 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 29 September 2022 amendments (see paragraph 31 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

57. The relevant provisions of the Latvian Constitution (Satversme) are worded as follows:
Article 1
“Latvia is an independent democratic republic.”
Article 4
“The Latvian language is the official language in the Republic of Latvia ...”
Article 91
“All persons in Latvia shall be equal before the law and the courts. Human rights shall be exercised without discrimination of any kind.”
Article 112
“Everyone has the right to education. The State shall ensure that everyone may receive primary and secondary education without charge. Primary education shall be compulsory.”
Article 114
“Persons belonging to minorities shall have the right to preserve and develop their language and their ethnic and cultural identity.”
The impugned legislative amendments
58. The impugned legislative amendments have been summarised above (see paragraphs 23-26). Full extracts from the relevant domestic laws and regulations have been reproduced below. Public and private primary and secondary schools
59. The relevant provisions of the Education Law, as of 1 September 2019, read as follows:
Section 9. Language in which an Education is Acquired
“(1)  An education at State [educational institutions], municipal educational institutions and State higher educational institutions shall be acquired in the official language. (11)  In private educational institutions, a general education and vocational education at the level of primary education and secondary education shall be acquired in the official language. (2)  An education may be acquired in another language:
1)  in educational institutions which are implementing educational programmes in accordance with the bilateral or multilateral international agreements of the Republic of Latvia;
2)  in educational institutions which are implementing minority educational programmes at the level of pre-school education and primary education in conformity with the provisions of section 41 of this Law;
21)  in educational institutions in which the subjects of general education programmes are completely or partially implemented in a foreign language in order to ensure the learning of other official languages of the European Union in conformity with the conditions of the relevant State standard on education;
3)  in educational institutions specified in other laws. (21)  In educational institutions implementing special education programmes for students with hearing impairments, and in other educational institutions in which a learning environment suitable for the acquisition of an education in Latvian sign language is ensured, an education may also be acquired in Latvian sign language. (3)  In order to acquire a primary or secondary education, each student shall learn the official language and take examinations testing his or her proficiency in the official language, to the extent and in accordance with the procedures stipulated by the Cabinet [of Ministers].
[new paragraph 31 inserted with the Law of 15 April 2021, effective as of 1 May 2021]
(31)  The study programmes of higher educational institutions and colleges shall be implemented in the official language. The implementation of a study programme in a foreign language shall be laid down in the Law on Higher Educational Institutions.”
Section 41. Educational Programmes for Minorities
“(1)  Educational programmes for minorities shall be developed by an educational institution selecting any of the model educational programmes included in the guidelines for the State standard on pre-school education or primary education. (11)  In educational programmes for minorities, from class 1 to 6, [teaching] in the official language shall account for no less than 50% of the total lessons in an academic year, including [lessons in] foreign languages. (12)  In educational programmes for minorities, from class 7 to 9, [teaching] in the official language shall account for no less than 80% of the total lessons in an academic year, including [lessons in] foreign languages. (2)  Educational programmes for minorities shall additionally include the content necessary for learning about the relevant ethnic culture[s] and the integration of minorities in Latvia.”
Paragraph 66 of Transitional Provisions
“Amendments to this Law as regards section 9(11) and section 9(2)(2), and amendments to section 41(1) ... and section 41(11) and 41(12), shall enter into force:
1)  on 1 September 2019 – in relation to the implementation of pre-school education programmes and the implementation of primary education programmes in classes 1-7;
2)  on 1 September 2020 – in relation to the implementation of primary education programmes in class 8 and the implementation of secondary education programmes in classes 10 and 11;
3)  on 1 September 2021 – in relation to the implementation of primary education programmes in class 9 and the implementation of secondary education programmes in class 12.”
60. The relevant provisions of the General Education Law, as of 1 September 2020, read as follows:
Section 43. Content of General Secondary Education Programmes
“(1)  The mandatory content of general secondary education programmes shall be established in the State general standard on secondary education. (2)  An educational institution may, while not exceeding the weekly lesson load and the daily number of lessons specified in section 44 of this Law, additionally include in a general secondary education programme subjects not specified in the State general standard on secondary education, including native languages of minorities and educational content related to the identity and integration of national minorities into Latvian society.”
61. These amendments took effect on 1 September 2020 with respect to pupils in classes 10 and 11, and on 1 September 2021 with respect to pupils in class 12. 62. The amendments are not applicable to educational institutions which have implemented an education programme recognised by another member State of the EU or the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO), the Supreme Council of European Schools or the International Baccalaureate Organisation in an official language of an EU member State or a NATO member State. Their operation is governed by a special Law which came into force on 11 July 2020 (the International School Law). In the 2019/2020 school year there were six international schools in Latvia which implemented educational programmes established by the above-mentioned countries or international organisations (the International School of Latvia; the International School of Riga; the King’s College, the British School of Latvia; the Riga German School (a private pre-school), the Jules Verne Riga French School, and Exupéry International School). The aim of this Law is to ensure that a general education in Latvia is accessible to the children (family members) of persons employed and serving in foreign and international organisations (in particular, the authorities of the EU and the armed forces of NATO and EU member States), and thus to promote the operation of such authorities and organisations in Latvia and to contribute to international cooperation in matters related to economics, politics and education (section 2). Pre-schools
63. The Education Law provides that the Cabinet of Ministers shall determine the guidelines for State pre-school education. Since 18 April 2012 those guidelines have included models and templates for pre-school education. From 17 August 2012 to 1 September 2019 those guidelines were laid down in Regulation no. 533 (2012) by the Cabinet of Ministers. 64. On 21 November 2018 the Cabinet of Ministers adopted Regulation no. 716 (2018), which was in force from 1 September 2019 onwards. The relevant paragraphs of that Regulation and its Annexes read as follows:
Paragraph 5
“The content and process of pre-school education shall include values such as life, human dignity, freedom, family, work, nature, the Latvian language and the State of Latvia, and also other values referred to in the Constitution and Cabinet regulations regarding the guidelines for the upbringing of pupils and the procedures for evaluating information, teaching aids, materials, and upbringing methods.”
Paragraph 9 of Annex 2 (general minority educational programme)
“Throughout the entire pre-school education stage, 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 communication tool for children 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.”
Universities
65. Section 56(3) of the Law on Higher Educational Institutions, with legislative amendments passed on 21 June 2018, read as follows:
“In higher educational institutions and colleges, study programmes shall be taught in the official language. Study programmes may be pursued in a foreign language only in the following circumstances:
1)  Study programmes pursued by foreign students in Latvia and study programmes organised as part of the cooperation provided for by European Union programmes and international agreements may be taught in official languages of the European Union. Where the study programme to be followed in Latvia lasts more than six months or represents more than 20 credits, the number of compulsory class hours to be completed by foreign students must include the learning of the official language;
2)  Classes taught in official languages of the European Union may not account for more than one-fifth of the credits for the study programme; final exams, State exams, assessed coursework and dissertations for a bachelor’s or master’s degree will not be taken into account for the purposes of that calculation;
3)  In the following categories of courses, study programmes may be followed in a foreign language where necessary, in order to achieve their objectives ... : linguistic and cultural studies or language courses ...;
4)  Joint study programmes may be taught in official languages of the European Union.”
66. These amendments took effect on 1 January 2019, but higher educational institutions could continue to provide study programmes in a particular language, firstly until 31 December 2022, and then until 31 December 2025. After 1 January 2019, however, the enrolment of new students in such programmes was not allowed (paragraph 49 of the transitional provisions). 67. Section 56 of the Law on Higher Educational Institutions was repealed and replaced in its entirety, and since 1 May 2021 it has read as follows:
“... (3)  The study programmes of higher educational institutions and colleges shall be implemented in the official language. In a study programme which is implemented in the official language, no more than one-fifth of the credits for the study programme may be [available through classes] taught in other official languages of the European Union, taking into account that final and State examinations, as well as the writing of ... a bachelor’s or master’s thesis may not be included in this part. (4)  Study programmes may be taught in official languages of the European Union in the following cases:
1)  if this is provided for in international agreements or within the scope of the cooperation provided for in European Union programmes;
2)  if all study programmes which are part of the same thematic area of education as the study programme to be taught in an official language of the European Union have received a good or excellent evaluation in the accreditation process of the field of study;
3)  if they are joint study programmes. (5)  In the following groups of educational programmes, a study programme, including a joint study programme, may be taught in any official language of the European Union or another foreign language if this is necessary for the achievement of the objectives of the study programme in accordance with the Latvian Classification of Education: language and culture studies, and language programmes. In such case[s], all study programmes should have received a good or excellent evaluation in the accreditation process of the field of study. The Higher Education Quality Commission shall decide on the conformity of the study programme with the groups of educational programmes.
... (7)  For foreign students, acquisition of the official language shall be included in the [number of] compulsory [class hours] of the study course if [their] studies in Latvia are expected to be longer than six months or exceed 20 credits.”
The Constitutional Court’s ability to refuse to examine a case which has already been decided
68. Section 20 of the Law on the Constitutional Court sets out the grounds on which a panel examining a constitutional complaint may refuse to examine a case. Section 20(5)(4) provides that when examining applications, the panel dealing with the application may refuse to examine the matter if the application has been submitted in relation to a claim that has already been decided (par jau izspriestu prasījumu). 69. The Constitutional Court has often refused to examine cases on such grounds (see, for example, decision of 22 May 2018 in relation to application no. 67/2018, decision of 28 May 2018 in relation to application no. 68/2018 and decision of 26 March 2020 on application no. 21/2020). The Constitutional Court’s case-lawLanguage of instruction in public secondary schools (judgment of 13 May 2005)

70. The domestic legislation from 2004 concerning the language of instruction in public secondary schools (providing that at least 60% of the curriculum had to be taught in the State language) was reviewed by the Constitutional Court in proceedings instituted by twenty members of parliament (case no. 2004-18-0106). In its judgment of 13 May 2005, the Constitutional Court held that the contested provisions were compatible with Article 114 of the Constitution (the rights of minorities), as minorities could maintain and develop their language, and their ethnic and cultural uniqueness. Setting out how much a language of instruction could be used in schools pursued the legitimate aims of protection of the State language and protection of the rights of others. The impugned restrictions were compatible with Article 114 of the Constitution. 71. In reaching that conclusion, the Constitutional Court established that the range of rights enjoyed by minorities in Europe in the field of education differed considerably, and there was no common approach. In this regard, it relied on the education programmes and languages of instruction used in several European countries. In addition, it was not established that the impugned reform would decrease the quality of education and educational processes. However, a monitoring mechanism had to be established, particularly with respect to the quality of education and educational process. That mechanism had to be objective, comprehensive, professional, regular, and based on scientific knowledge and methods. The State had to ensure that data was collected in such a way that informed decisions could be made on the basis of an analysis, and that the public, pupils and their parents were provided with information about changes in the quality of education and the progress of the educational process. Language of instruction in public primary and secondary schools (judgment of 23 April 2019)
72. See paragraph 45 et seq. above. Language of instruction in private primary and secondary schools (judgment of 13 November 2019)
73. The domestic legislation concerning the language of instruction in private primary and secondary schools was reviewed by the Constitutional Court in proceedings instituted by twenty members of parliament (see paragraph 45 above) and fourteen pupils (case no. 2018-22-01). It examined the compatibility of the 2018 amendments with Article 1 of the Constitution (the principle of legal certainty), the second sentence of Article 91 (the principle of non-discrimination), the first sentence of Article 112 (the right to education) and Article 114 (the rights of minorities), and in its judgment of 13 November 2019 it held that the contested legal provisions were compatible with those provisions. Language of instruction in pre-schools (judgment of 19 June 2020)
74. The domestic legislation concerning the language of instruction in public and private pre-schools was reviewed by the Constitutional Court in proceedings instituted by fourteen individuals (case no. 2019-20-03). It examined its compatibility with Article 91 of the Constitution (the principle of equality), the first sentence of Article 112 (the right to education) and Article 114 (the rights of minorities), and in its judgment of 19 June 2020 it held that the contested legal provisions were compatible with those provisions. Language of instruction in universities (judgment of 11 June 2020)
75. The domestic legislation concerning the language of instruction in universities was reviewed by the Constitutional Court in proceedings instituted by twenty members of parliament (case no. 2019-12-01). It examined its compatibility with Article 112 of the Constitution (the right to education), taken in conjunction with Article 113 (freedom of scientific research, artistic and other creative activity), and in its judgment of 11 June 2020 it held that some of the relevant provisions complied with those Articles. By contrast, other relevant provisions (section 56(3) of the Law on Higher Educational Institutions and paragraph 49 of the transitional provisions) did not comply with Articles 112 and 113 in so far as they applied to private universities, their teaching staff and students, because the legislature had not considered the possibility of using less restrictive means to achieve the legitimate aim sought. As the legislature needed time to prepare regulations on the use of language by private universities, those provisions were to be repealed as of 1 May 2021. 76. In so far as the proceedings related to the compatibility of the contested provisions with Article 1 of the Constitution (the principle of legal certainty) and Article 105 (the right of property), the Constitutional Court instituted new proceedings (case no. 2020-33-01) and within those proceedings it made a request for a preliminary ruling by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The Constitutional Court asked the following questions:
“1)  Does legislation such as that at issue in the main proceedings constitute a restriction on the freedom of establishment enshrined in Article 49 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union [“TFEU”], or, in the alternative, on the freedom to provide services guaranteed in Article 56 of the TFEU, and on the freedom to conduct a business recognised in Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union?
2)  What considerations should be taken into account when assessing whether the legislation in question is justified, suitable and proportionate with regard to its legitimate purpose of protecting the official language as a manifestation of the national identity?”
77. Upon receipt of the preliminary ruling by the CJEU (see paragraph 94 below), on 14 September 2022 the Constitutional Court resumed the proceedings and decided to examine the case in its full composition. In its judgment of 9 February 2023, the Constitutional Court held that the contested legal provisions, in so far as they concerned official languages of the European Union, were not necessary for the pursuit of legitimate aims, were not proportionate and did not ensure harmony with European Union law. Those provisions were declared incompatible with the Constitution as of the date when they had been enacted. However, in so far as the contested provisions concerned languages which were not official languages of the European Union, the Constitutional Court held that they were compatible with the Constitution. Other domestic material
78. According to extensive information submitted by the Government, support measures have been provided for teachers and pupils for more than twenty years. The Ministry of Education and Science offered training, seminars and courses to improve teachers’ Latvian language skills; it also issued relevant methodological and study materials, including digital materials available online. Since 1996 more than 20,000 pre-school and schoolteachers have taken part in various training programmes and courses offered by the Latvian Language Agency, with a view to improving their Latvian language skills. 79. Various projects have been implemented in the framework of EU co‑funded programmes and projects, such as “Learning the Latvian language” (2006-2008, covering training, cooperation models and study materials), “Support for learning the State language and bilingual education” (2008‑2012, covering the reform of the curriculum), “Development of the professional competence of teachers of Latvian and [Latvian] literature, and teachers teaching bilingually” (2010-2012, covering the professional development of teachers), and “A competency-based approach to the curriculum” (2018-2021, updating the curriculum and providing new study materials in relation to subjects such as minority languages and literature, and also providing support to teachers to improve their Latvian language skills). 80. The applicants stated that the domestic authorities had not sufficiently monitored the quality of the education received by pupils attending minority education programmes; their representatives had prepared alternative monitoring reports. According to them, it was unclear how the deterioration in the quality of education could be prevented by training teachers and improving study materials. Although the quality of education in minority schools had deteriorated as instruction in the State language had increased, the level of education remained very high in those establishments. INTERNATIONAL LAW AND PRACTICEInternational treaties under the auspices of the United Nations

81. The right to education and the right to use a minority language are enshrined in various international treaties to which Latvia is a party, although the scope of those rights may vary depending on the treaty in question. Those rights are included, for example, in treaties such as the United Nations International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination (Article 5) and the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Article 27). 82. In addition, the United Nations International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) devotes two Articles to the right to education (Articles 13 and 14). According to the United Nations (“UN”) Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Article 13 is the most wide-ranging and comprehensive provision on the right to education in international human rights law. It recognises the right of everyone to free education (free for primary level only, and “the progressive introduction of free education” for secondary and higher levels). Article 13 § 2 lists a number of specific steps States Parties are required to take to ensure the right to education. These include the provision of primary education which is compulsory, “generally available and accessible”, secondary education in different forms, and “equally accessible” higher education. States Parties must also develop a school system, establish an adequate fellowship system and improve the material conditions of teaching. Reports by United Nations treaty bodiesIn general

83. The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, in General Comment No. 13 (8 December 1999, E/C.1.12/1999/10) on Article 13 of the ICESCR (the right to education), stated as follows (footnotes omitted):
1. Normative content of Article 13
“... Article 13 (2): The right to receive an education - some general remarks
6. While the precise and appropriate application of the terms will depend upon the conditions prevailing in a particular State party, education in all its forms and at all levels shall exhibit the following interrelated and essential features:
(a)  Availability. Functioning educational institutions and programmes have to be available in sufficient quantity within the jurisdiction of the State party. What they require to function depends upon numerous factors, including the developmental context within which they operate ... ;
(b)  Accessibility. Educational institutions and programmes have to be accessible to everyone, without discrimination, within the jurisdiction of the State party. Accessibility has three overlapping dimensions:
Non-discrimination - education must be accessible to all, especially the most vulnerable groups, in law and fact, without discrimination on any of the prohibited grounds ...;
Physical accessibility - education has to be within safe physical reach, either by attendance at some reasonably convenient geographic location (e.g. a neighbourhood school) or via modern technology (e.g. access to a ‘distance learning’ programme);
Economic accessibility - education has to be affordable to all. This dimension of accessibility is subject to the differential wording of article 13 (2) in relation to primary, secondary and higher education: whereas primary education shall be available ‘free to all’, States parties are required to progressively introduce free secondary and higher education;
(c)  Acceptability - the form and substance of education, including curricula and teaching methods, have to be acceptable (e.g. relevant, culturally appropriate and of good quality) to students and, in appropriate cases, parents; this is subject to the educational objectives required by article 13 (1) and such minimum educational standards as may be approved by the State (see art. 13 (3) and (4));
(d)  Adaptability - education has to be flexible so it can adapt to the needs of changing societies and communities and respond to the needs of students within their diverse social and cultural settings.
... 2. States parties’ obligations and violations
43. While the Covenant provides for progressive realization and acknowledges the constraints due to the limits of available resources, it also imposes on States parties various obligations which are of immediate effect. States parties have immediate obligations in relation to the right to education, such as the ‘guarantee’ that the right ‘will be exercised without discrimination of any kind’ (art. 2 (2)) and the obligation ‘to take steps’ (art. 2 (1)) towards the full realization of article 13. Such steps must be ‘deliberate, concrete and targeted’ towards the full realization of the right to education. 44. The realization of the right to education over time, that is ‘progressively’, should not be interpreted as depriving States parties’ obligations of all meaningful content. Progressive realization means that States parties have a specific and continuing obligation ‘to move as expeditiously and effectively as possible’ towards the full realization of article 13. 45. There is a strong presumption of impermissibility of any retrogressive measures taken in relation to the right to education, as well as other rights enunciated in the Covenant. If any deliberately retrogressive measures are taken, the State party has the burden of proving that they have been introduced after the most careful consideration of all alternatives and that they are fully justified by reference to the totality of the rights provided for in the Covenant and in the context of the full use of the State party’s maximum available resources. 46. The right to education like all human rights imposes three types or levels of obligations on States parties: the obligation to respect, protect and fulfil. In turn, the obligation to fulfil incorporates both and an obligation to facilitate and an obligation to provide. 47. The obligation to respect requires States parties to avoid measures that hinder or prevent the enjoyment of the right to education. The obligation to protect requires States parties to take measures that prevent third parties from interfering with the enjoyment of the right to education. The obligation to fulfil (facilitate) requires States to take positive measures that enable and assist individuals and communities to enjoy the right to education. Finally, States parties have an obligation to fulfil (provide) the right to education. As a general rule, States parties are obliged to fulfil (provide) a specific right in the Covenant when an individual or group is unable, for reasons beyond their control, to realize the right themselves by the means at their disposal. However, the extent of this obligation is always subject to the text of the Covenant. 48. In this respect, two features of article 13 require emphasis. First, it is clear that article 13 regards States as having principal responsibility for the direct provision of education in most circumstances; States parties recognize, for example, that the ‘development of a system of schools at all levels shall be actively pursued’ (art. 13 (2) (e)). Secondly, given the differential wording of article 13 (2) in relation to primary, secondary, higher and fundamental education, the parameters of a State party’s obligation to fulfil (provide) are not the same for all levels of education. Accordingly, in light of the text of the Covenant, States parties have an enhanced obligation to fulfil (provide) regarding the right to education, but the extent of this obligation is not uniform for all levels of education. The Committee observes that this interpretation of the obligation to fulfil (provide) in relation to article 13 coincides with the law and practice of numerous States parties.”
Country-specific
84. Concluding observations on the combined sixth to twelfth periodic reports of Latvia (CERD/C/LVA/CO/6-12), adopted on 23 August 2018 by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, contain the following recommendations:
“17. The Committee recommends that the State party take measures to ensure that its language policy and laws do not create direct or indirect discrimination or restrict the rights of ethnic minorities to access education ... and:
(a)  Ensure that there are no undue restrictions on access to education in minority languages. Reconsider the necessity of amendments to the Law on Education that create further restrictions on the number of lessons of minority language in public and private schools;
...”
Treaties within the Council of Europe
85. The Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (“the Framework Convention”) is the first legally binding multilateral instrument devoted to the protection of national minorities and is regarded as the most comprehensive international standard in the field of minority rights. Thirty-eight current member States of the Council of Europe have ratified the Framework Convention, whereas four member States have signed but not ratified it (Belgium, Greece, Iceland and Luxembourg), and four member States have neither signed nor ratified it (Andorra, France, Monaco and Türkiye). The Framework Convention itself does not define a “national minority”. Several parties, including Austria, Estonia, Germany, Latvia, North Macedonia, Poland, Slovenia, Sweden and Switzerland, set out their definition of a “national minority” when they ratified the Framework Convention. Some of these declarations exclude non-citizens from protection under the Framework Convention, and some identify the specific groups to whom the Framework Convention will apply. 86. The Framework Convention entered into force in respect of Latvia on 1 October 2005. When ratifying the Framework Convention, Latvia made the following declaration:
“The Republic of Latvia,
...
- Taking into account the specific historical experience and traditions of Latvia, declares that the notion ‘national minorities’ which has not been defined in the Framework Convention shall, in the meaning of [this Convention], apply to citizens of Latvia who differ from Latvians in terms of their culture, religion or language, who have traditionally lived in Latvia for generations and consider themselves to belong to the State and society of Latvia, who wish to preserve and develop their culture, religion or language. Persons who are not citizens of Latvia or another State but who permanently and legally reside in the Republic of Latvia, who do not belong to a national minority ... as defined in this declaration, but who identify themselves with a national minority that [otherwise] meets the definition contained in this declaration, shall enjoy the rights prescribed in the Framework Convention, unless specific exceptions are prescribed by law.”
87. The relevant provisions of the Framework Convention read as follows:
Article 3
“1. Every person belonging to a national minority shall have the right freely to choose to be treated or not to be treated as such and no disadvantage shall result from this choice or from the exercise of the rights which are connected to that choice.
...”
Article 4
“1. The Parties undertake to guarantee to persons belonging to national minorities the right of equality before the law and of equal protection of the law. In this respect, any discrimination based on belonging to a national minority shall be prohibited. 2. The Parties undertake to adopt, where necessary, adequate measures in order to promote, in all areas of economic, social, political and cultural life, full and effective equality between persons belonging to a national minority and those belonging to the majority. In this respect, they shall take due account of the specific conditions of the persons belonging to national minorities. 3. The measures adopted in accordance with paragraph 2 shall not be considered to be an act of discrimination.”
Article 5
“1. The Parties undertake to promote the conditions necessary for persons belonging to national minorities to maintain and develop their culture, and to preserve the essential elements of their identity, namely their religion, language, traditions and cultural heritage.
...”
Article 12
“1. The Parties shall, where appropriate, take measures in the fields of education and research to foster knowledge of the culture, history, language and religion of their national minorities and of the majority. 2. In this context the Parties shall inter alia provide adequate opportunities for teacher training and access to textbooks, and facilitate contacts among students and teachers of different communities. 3. The Parties undertake to promote equal opportunities for access to education at all levels for persons belonging to national minorities.”
Article 13
“1. Within the framework of their education systems, the Parties shall recognise that persons belonging to a national minority have the right to set up and to manage their own private educational and training establishments. 2. The exercise of this right shall not entail any financial obligation for the Parties.”
Article 14
“1. The Parties undertake to recognise that every person belonging to a national minority has the right to learn his or her minority language. 2. In areas inhabited by persons belonging to national minorities traditionally or in substantial numbers, if there is sufficient demand, the Parties shall endeavour to ensure, as far as possible and within the framework of their education systems, that persons belonging to those minorities have adequate opportunities for being taught the minority language or for receiving instruction in this language. 3. Paragraph 2 of this article shall be implemented without prejudice to the learning of the official language or the teaching in this language.”
Reports and resolutions within the Council of EuropeIn general

88. In Thematic Commentary No. 3 concerning language rights (ACFC/44DOC(2012)001 rev), adopted on 24 May 2012, the Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention noted as follows (footnotes omitted):
“PART VI: LANGUAGE RIGHTS AND EDUCATION
... 2. Adequate opportunities for teaching and learning of and in minority languages
2.1. Open and inclusive approach to minority languages in education
70. Authorities are encouraged to adopt detailed legislative guarantees for the protection and promotion of minority languages in formal and informal education and to monitor regularly the implementation of legal provisions in practice ... Special attention must be paid to the languages of numerically smaller minorities, such as those of indigenous groups, as their languages are often particularly threatened ...
... 72. The right to learn and to develop one’s minority language, as contained in Article 14.1 of the Framework Convention, is not only linked to the preservation of individual identity, but also forms an important basis for the development of the individual linguistic repertoire and the acquisition of additional languages. The possibility of being taught in a minority language can also be an important factor in ensuring equal access to education and contributing towards full and effective participation in society. Nevertheless, it is equally important, as stressed in Article 14.3, that proper knowledge of the official language(s) is acquired, as the lack thereof seriously restricts opportunities for persons belonging to national minorities to effectively participate in public life, and may inhibit their access to university education ... 73. The possibilities for teaching and learning of and in minority languages vary according to the specific parameters of local situations: bi- or multilingual schools may offer minority language education in parallel to that in the official language; minority language classes may be included in the public education system; or there may be private minority language schools or ‘Sunday classes’ organised by communities, with or without support from neighbouring states or the State Party. The Advisory Committee encourages the inclusion of minority languages in the public school system and in the mandatory curriculum, including languages of numerically smaller minorities...In addition, the Advisory Committee also welcomes private or community initiatives which are supported by the authorities. 74. A number of particular problems may be encountered as regards opportunities for minority language learning, including the insufficient number of teaching hours of or in a minority language or the organisation of classes outside normal school hours, high numerical thresholds for establishing minority language classes, lack of teachers and teaching or learning materials, or insufficient availability of classes due to the closure or merger of village schools. This raises questions of compatibility with Article 14.2 ... 75. In order to develop minority language skills as an added value for their speakers, whether belonging to a minority or not, there must be continuity in access to teaching and learning of and in minority languages at all levels of the education system, from pre-school to higher and adult education. Particular weaknesses in the offer of minority language education are often observed at pre-school as well as at secondary school level. Lack of incentives or insufficient possibilities at pre-school, secondary or higher level can seriously reduce the attractiveness of minority language learning at primary level ...
2.2. Means to enable the full enjoyment of educational rights
76. In order to ensure the quality of education in and of minority languages, adequate school curricula and standards must be developed and teaching methodology, as well as material, adapted. A particularly important aspect in ensuring the quality of education in and of minority languages, however, is teacher training ...
2.3. Striking a balance between majority and minority languages in education
79. Article 12 of the Framework Convention calls for concrete measures to promote knowledge about minority and majority languages. Language plays an important role in promoting integration, mutual respect among groups, and social solidarity. This implies not only providing language education for members of national minority communities, but also education about and of minority languages for the benefit of the majority language speakers and society as a whole. ... Where states have introduced measures to promote the official language(s), it is particularly important that these go hand in hand with measures to protect and develop the languages of minorities, as otherwise such practices may lead to assimilation rather than integration. 80. On the other hand, lack of knowledge of the official language(s) can limit possibilities of equal participation in society, of access to higher education and access to employment. Parents may as a result opt for enrolling their children in mainstream schools as these seem to offer better opportunities to integrate into society and obtain gainful employment. Therefore, minority language schools must provide an adequate development of the speakers’ proficiency in the official language(s). However, care must be taken in this regard to prevent a lowering of general education standards as a result of policies that suddenly introduce more official language learning. This can be a risk when minority language teachers are called upon to teach in the official language, without proper support and preparation. Education reforms that aim at promoting increased official language teaching in minority language schools must be implemented gradually and flexibly to allow for adaptation to the needs of the teachers and the students concerned. In this context, it is important to monitor regularly the quality of education provided throughout the reform process. This should be carried out in close consultation with representatives of the school board, teacher and parents’ organisations. 81. The Advisory Committee encourages the development of bi- or multilingual teaching models as part of the mandatory school curriculum. Ideally, if the situation so allows, dual-medium approaches may be adopted in which minority and majority languages are present in equal proportions. In specific situations, however, it can also be useful to promote one or another language in order to counterbalance differentials in language prestige, to guarantee the rights of speakers of numerically small minority languages, and to meet the legitimate needs of parents and children as protected under the Framework Convention. Dual-medium approaches can achieve their aim by alternating the languages, based on weekdays or subject, or by applying the one-teacher-one-language model. When languages are determined by subject, minority languages should not be limited to cultural or historical subjects. The Advisory Committee recommends that the authorities, in close consultation with persons belonging to national minorities, develop a comprehensive long-term strategy in order to promote multiple language development in education policies.”
Country-specific
(a)   The Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention
89. The Third Opinion on Latvia of the Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention (ACFC/OP/III (2018) 001 REV), adopted on 23 February 2018, contains the following in its Executive Summary:
“A large number of schools offering instruction in minority languages continue to operate in Latvia, and the proportion of children studying national minority programmes has remained stable in the last decade, at over 25% of the total number of children. Schools using lesser-spoken national minority languages, such as Belarusian, Estonian, Hebrew, Lithuanian, Polish and Ukrainian, receive increased subsidies on account of higher costs. Notwithstanding these positive steps, measures have been taken to increase the use of Latvian in teaching in schools using national minority languages as languages of instruction. All students, including those who have studied in national minority programmes, are obliged to sit centralised exams in a large variety of subjects in the Latvian language. Plans to narrow the scope of national minority language teaching in grades 7 to 9 to 20% of lesson hours within a week and in grades 10 to 12 only to lessons of minority languages and ethno-cultural subjects are of particular concern.
... Issues for immediate action:
promote the integration of society as a two-way process, in particular encouraging active participation of all segments of society in all relevant fields, such as education ... and enhance intercultural contacts with society as a whole, beyond the promotion of proficiency in Latvian ...
ensure continued availability of teaching and learning in languages of national minorities throughout the country with a view to meeting existing demand; representatives of national minorities, including parents, should be consulted closely to ensure that their interests and concerns with regard to languages of instruction in minority language schools are effectively taken into account ...”
90. On 3 March 2021, the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe adopted a Resolution on the Implementation of the Framework Convention in Latvia (CM/ResCMN(2021)9), which contains the following conclusions:
“[As regards positive developments] Latvia has maintained a consistent policy based on an open approach with regard to the personal scope of application of the Framework Convention, albeit restricted to persons holding Latvian citizenship. ... Sustained efforts have continued to provide persons belonging to national minorities with opportunities for minority language instruction. The proportion of children studying national minority programmes has remained stable in the last decade, at over 25% of the total number of children. There are no obstacles in Latvia to setting up private schools and a number of faith-based and civic organisations of national minorities make use of such possibilities. Financial support for such initiatives, based on the “money follows student” principle, guarantees the equal treatment of all schools regardless of whether they are public or private. Funding for schools teaching bilingually in Latvian and Belarusian, Estonian, Hebrew, Lithuanian, Polish or Ukrainian has, since September 2017, been increased to take into account the higher costs incurred by schools with small numbers of students learning less spoken languages in Latvia, and the higher cost of acquiring teaching and learning materials and training qualified teachers. On the basis of bilateral agreements signed with a number of countries, textbooks and other teaching and learning materials from abroad can be used in schools in Latvia and guest teachers are authorised to work in such schools.
[As regards issues of concern] ... Society in Latvia continues to struggle with the consequences of past divisions, with the principal national groups – the Latvian majority and the Russian minority – holding different geopolitical viewpoints and cultural identities. Persons belonging to each of these groups have significantly different perceptions of history and of the State in which they would wish to live. Attempts to create a cohesive society based on civic identity have not advanced significantly in recent years ...
... Schools using national minority languages have come under increased pressure to increase the use of the Latvian language in teaching. As of the 2017-2018 school year, all students, including those who had studied in national minority programmes, are obliged to sit the centralised exams in subjects such as mathematics, chemistry, biology, physics, information technology, geography and economics, in the Latvian language. Additionally, children taking grade 9 exams no longer benefit from having a choice of language in which the tasks are presented. Plans to reduce the scope of national minority language teaching to 20% of lesson hours per week by the 2020/2021 school year in grades 7 to 9 and to reduce teaching only to lessons of minorities’ own languages and ethno-cultural subjects in grades 10 to 12 are of particular concern ...”
91. The Resolution contained, among other things, the following recommendation as regards issues for immediate action:
“[to] ensure the continued availability of teaching and learning in languages of national minorities throughout the country with a view to meeting existing demand; representatives of national minorities, including parents, should be consulted closely to ensure that their interests and concerns with regard to the languages of instruction in minority language schools are effectively taken into account.”
(b)   The European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI)
92. The ECRI Report on Latvia within the fifth monitoring cycle (CRI(2019)1), adopted on 4 December 2018 and published on 5 March 2019, contains the following passage (although no specific recommendations were made in this regard, because of the ECRI’s mandate):
“Integration
-  General overview
... 54. With regard to some specific issues concerning historical ethnic and national minorities, such as expressions of a separate identity (for example mother tongue education or minority language media) or their participation in public and political life, ECRI refers to the 3rd Opinion of the Council of Europe’s Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (FCNM), which carried out its last visit to Latvia in parallel to ECRI’s visit. The work of both monitoring bodies is based on mutual complementarity. The Advisory Committee also examined the situation of national minorities which are not covered in ECRI’s report.
...
-  Minority schools
61. While ECRI does not examine issues concerning the right to use minority languages in education (see § 54 above), it is concerned with aspects of regulating minority schools that might have an impact on the integration of minority pupils, such as teaching-standards and educational outcomes. It should be noted that this does not only affect ‘non-citizens’, as many members of the Russian minority, for example, are Latvian citizens. In addition, persons belonging to minorities originating from other parts of the former USSR might also opt for education in the Russian language for their children. In this respect, legal status, ethnicity and linguistic identity are not necessarily identical. 62. The Latvian authorities plan to make, with effect from 2021 onwards, Latvian the compulsory language of instruction in grades 10-12 across all bi-lingual schools. The only exceptions allowed will be the teaching of minority languages and cultures. In this context, ECRI would like to remind the authorities of the need to ensure that sufficient and adequate training is provided to teachers in minority schools in order to avoid any decrease in the quality of teaching provided to minority children as a result of the envisaged changes. 63. The authorities pointed out to ECRI that they decided to increase the number of subjects to be taught in Latvian in grades 7-9 in bilingual schools to further improve learning of the Latvian language before 2021. They also emphasise that while in 2010, 40% of minority pupils opted for the use of Russian in their exams, this number had fallen to only 8% in 2016, indicating high levels of Latvian language proficiency. In spite of these developments, ECRI encourages the authorities to assess the need for additional Latvian language tuition for minority pupils on an on-going basis in order to avoid them being put at a disadvantage with respect to educational outcomes and school results, which in turn could have a negative impact on their potential for successful socio-economic integration.”
(c)   The European Commission for Democracy through Law (Venice Commission)
93. The opinion issued by the Venice Commission entitled “On the recent amendments to the legislation on education in minority languages in Latvia” (CDL‑AD(2020)012, 18 June 2020), in so far as relevant, reads as follows (references omitted):
“II. Preliminary remarks
... B. Background information
... 2. Historical overview of the amendments in the field of the education in minority languages
12. Throughout history, Latvian – similarly as several other languages in Central and Eastern Europe – was actively suppressed and sometimes voluntarily abandoned in favour of languages considered more sophisticated or more international. This was the case of German in the 18-19th century and Russian in the 19-20th century. The situation of the Latvian language became critical after the occupation and unlawful annexation of Latvia by the Soviet Union in 1940, even more after the Soviet re-occupation of the country in 1944-1945 that led to large-scale migration from the other parts of the USSR into Latvia as well as mass deportations of the local population. The Soviet authorities relentlessly pursued semi-official policy of Russification. The Russian language was promoted as the means of inter-ethnic communication, other languages did not have an equal status, and this fully applied to occupied Latvia. 13. The restored Latvian state inherited from the Soviet system a segregated schooling system, in which Russians and other minorities attended schools with Russian as the language of instruction, while Latvians went to Latvian schools, but where Russian was a mandatory part of the curriculum. As a result, at the restoration of the independence of Latvia in 1991 the largest minority language – Russian – had in fact a more prominent place in schooling than the newly re-established state language Latvian. In 1991, most Latvians were bilingual, i.e. Latvian and Russian speakers, while Russians and other ethnic groups living in Latvia generally did not speak Latvian. On the other hand, other ethnic groups – Polish, Ukrainian, Belorussian and Jewish – did not have access to education in the language of their ethnicity, since they had been subject to the same policy of Russification as the titular ethnic group. Only since the restoration of Latvian independence were minority schools other than Russian schools re-established (they had existed in independent Latvia before World War II) – Polish, Jewish, Ukrainian and Estonian at first, to be joined by a Belarusian and a Lithuanian school some three to four years later. 14. The developments since the restoration of the independence of Latvia in 1991 have been aimed at reintroducing the Latvian language as the main language of communication and of public debate in the country. The Latvian language has therefore been granted constitutional protection and has been and continues to be actively promoted in all areas of public life, including in education.
... 4. Statistical data regarding proficiency in Latvian
...
26.  [The above-mentioned] data demonstrate that in Latvia there is an issue of lack of proficiency in the state language amongst students enrolled in schools implementing minority education programmes.
... C. Recent amendments to the legislation on education in minority languages
1. March 2018 amendments to the Education Law and the General Education Law
... 43. Prior to the March 2018 amendments, education in the state language was mandatory only in state schools. With the Law of 22 March 2018 amending the Education Law, the mandatory proportions regarding the use of Latvian are also applied to private schools of basic and secondary education.
... III. Analysis
A. Public consultation
59. During the meetings in Riga, the representatives of the Russian community complained that no adequate consultations with representatives of ethnic minorities had been conducted in the process of drafting and adopting the amendments increasing the proportion of Latvian as the language of instruction in minority education programmes. 60. These allegations were rejected by the representatives of the authorities, who provided detailed information on the public consultation organised by the Ministry of Education and on each step of the legislative procedure followed until the adoption of the draft amendments. The reform of the minority education programmes was announced in October 2017 at a press briefing held by the Ministry of Education, where information about the content of the planned changes as well as the timeframe of their implementation was provided. The proposals were discussed in the Advisory Council for Ethnic Minority Education on 10 November 2017, which gave a positive opinion on the proposed changes. On the basis of all the opinions collected from all interested parties, the Ministry of Education prepared and submitted to the Cabinet of Ministers an informative report on the proposed changes as well as the timeframe and necessary support measures for their implementation. The Ministry also prepared an infographic on the substance of the planned changes and published it on its website and on social media profiles. The informative report was discussed in an open meeting of the Government on 5 December 2017. Both draft laws and their explanatory notes were announced for public consultation on 7 December 2017 in accordance with the regular procedure in order to allow all interested parties to submit their opinions for consideration at the ministry level before the submission of the draft texts to the Government. Opinions and questions received from other ministries and NGOs were discussed in a meeting organised by the Ministry with their authors. The draft laws were submitted to Parliament on 23 January 2018 and were examined in a number of meetings in February and March 2018 by the Parliamentary Committee of Education, Culture and Science. Those meetings were open to the public, including the parents’ representatives and NGOs. The consultation with the relevant associations and public institutions (especially with schools implementing minority education programmes, etc.) continued in the process of the preparation of the relevant Cabinet Regulations in the framework of the Project Skola2030. 61. The allegations regarding the insufficiency of the consultation were examined in detail by the Constitutional Court in its judgments of 23 April 2019 and 13 November 2019. Based on audio recordings and minutes of four meetings of the Committee of Education, Culture and Science, the Constitutional Court observed that those meetings were attended, in addition to the relevant state authorities, by representatives of the opposition parties, social partners, parents’ associations, etc. who expressed their opinions. [The Constitutional Court] concluded that all proposals, including the opinion of the Advisory Council and the proposals of the applicants, were duly examined. [The Constitutional Court] explained that after that, the Saeima examined both draft laws in three readings, debated and voted on each proposal and that the amendments were elaborated and adopted in accordance with the procedure established by the Constitution and the Saeima Rules of Procedure, observing the principle of good legislation. 62. Unlike the Constitutional Court, the Venice Commission does not have access to all the materials and relevant information to ascertain whether representatives of national minorities were sufficiently and adequately consulted in the legislative process. However, the information on the proposed amendments that the Ministry of Education has provided, the number and variety of public meetings devoted to the discussion of the proposals inside and outside Parliament as well as the evaluation of the Constitutional Court create the presumption that there has been sufficient room for national minorities to voice their opinions and criticisms, a presumption that has not been rebutted by information that representatives of national minorities and others have provided to the rapporteurs. 63. Furthermore, it is relevant that the amendments were not unexpected. They are part of a continuous process of more than twenty-five years since the restoration of Latvia’s independence, in which the legislator has aimed to protect and promote the Latvian language as the main language of communication and education. Some elements have already been proposed earlier: the 1998 Education Law initially provided that in 2004 upper secondary education (grades 10 to 12) would switch to the Latvian language only. However, after protests the Law was softened, and allowed schools to teach up to 40% of the curriculum in minority languages. 64. Nevertheless, the Venice Commission wishes to underline the importance of creating conditions for effective participation of persons belonging to national minorities in public affairs, in particular those affecting them, in order to ensure that their needs are understood and taken into consideration. As pointed out in the Explanatory Report to the Framework Convention (§ 80), this requirement, which follows from Article 15 of the Framework Convention, involves inter alia consultation with these persons when states are contemplating legislative or other measures likely to affect them directly, as well as involving them in the assessment of the possible impact that planned measures might have on them. Therefore, the Commission invites the authorities to involve or continue to involve civil society, especially representatives of national minorities, in the actual implementation of the adopted changes as well as in the process of possible future changes affecting minorities’ rights. B. Compliance with international standards
1. Fair balance between promotion of the state language proficiency and protection of the linguistic rights of the national minorities
a. Is the aim to strengthen proficiency in the state language legitimate? 65. The aim of the amendments, as explained by the authorities, is to strengthen the Latvian language proficiency of the students enrolled in minority education programmes in order to promote their integration into society and effective participation in the democratic processes as well as to combat language-based segregation in the Latvian society. 66. The authorities also highlighted that proficiency in Latvian would have a number of advantages for persons belonging to minorities: it would allow them to acquire vocational or higher education in state-run institutions, which is available in Latvian only, to improve their competitiveness in the labour market, – especially to gain access to employment in public administration where proficiency in Latvian is a precondition for recruitment –, to have access to information sources (e.g. channels, newspapers, information blogs, etc.) in the Latvian language, to facilitate their communication with public institutions, etc. 67. Data referred to earlier in the present opinion ... suggest that there might be a need to foster proficiency in the Latvian language in schools, especially amongst children attending minority education programmes. Therefore, the Commission is ready to accept that the measures adopted by the Latvian authorities to increase proficiency in Latvian serve legitimate aims. 68. In its previous opinions related to the legislation on languages in Slovakia and Ukraine, the Venice Commission has repeatedly held that ‘it is a legitimate and commendable aim for States to promote the strengthening of the State language and its command by all citizens, and to take action for its learning by all, as a way to address existing inequalities and to facilitate more effective integration of persons belonging to national minorities into society’. Based on the comparative analysis of laws applicable in European countries, the Commission noted that ‘state authorities are perfectly entitled to promote the knowledge and use of the official language and to ensure its protection’. This is in line with § 78 of the Explanatory Report to the Framework Convention which recognises that ‘knowledge of the official language is a factor of social cohesion and integration’. The legitimacy of the protection of the state language has, moreover, been stressed by the Advisory Committee. 69. At the same time, the Framework Convention implies that the member states have to strike a fair balance between the preservation and promotion of the state language as a tool for integration within society, on the one hand, and the protection of the linguistic rights of persons belonging to national minorities, on the other hand. In order to ensure a fair balance, the changes introduced by the Latvian authorities have to be appropriate to reach the aim sought to be realized, and they must also be proportionate.
b. Are the means appropriate to realise the legitimate aim?
... 74. In view of the limited information at its disposal, the Venice Commission is not in a position to determine the weight of the various causes and reasons behind the lack of proficiency of the students attending minority education programmes or to verify the explanations provided by the Latvian authorities. Therefore, the Commission is ready to accept that increasing the proportion of the teaching in Latvian in minority education programmes may be an appropriate means to achieve the legitimate aim, i.e. raise proficiency in Latvian amongst students attending such programmes, provided this reform is accompanied by additional measures to be taken by the authorities in order to provide the schools concerned with appropriate teaching methodologies, educational materials as well as teachers who are proficient in Latvian.
c. Are the means proportionate?
... 77. As noted in the Explanatory Report to the Framework Convention (§§ 75-79), Article 14 leaves the state parties a wide margin of discretion in shaping their policies with regard to providing for instruction of or in minority languages in their education system. There must be (i) a sufficient demand and (ii) sufficient resources, and there is (iii) a choice between teaching in the minority language and teaching of the minority language. Furthermore, (iv) these policies shall be implemented without prejudice to the learning of the official language or the teaching in this language, which may put limitations to using the minority language as the language of instruction. 78. However, this does not imply that a state party always can fulfil its duties under Article 14 of the Framework Convention by merely providing for instruction of minority languages. This is in particular true in a situation where for a long time education in minority languages has been an essential element of the education system. Although the segregated school system in Latvia was introduced during the illegal Soviet occupation, after the restoration of the Latvian state in 1991, the state gradually developed a bilingual education system. As observed before, the Framework Convention implies that the member states have to strike a fair balance between the preservation and promotion of the state language as a tool for social cohesion and integration within society, on the one hand, and the protection of the linguistic rights of persons belonging to national minorities, on the other hand. In order to ensure such a balance, in determining whether changes are proportionate to the aim sought, regard should be given to the existing, historically grown education system and the interests and expectations flowing therefrom. ...
... 81. The Commission recalls that, in the context of the Framework Convention monitoring mechanism, changes from one model to another have been accepted in the past as (possibly) being justified by the legitimate goal of any state to support and (re)vitalize its state language(s) in the case of e.g. Estonia and Latvia. That said, as the Commission underlined in its 2017 opinion on Ukraine (§ 96), ‘in pursuing a legitimate public policy objective, to satisfy the proportionality requirement, the policy option chosen should be the one with the least degree possible of adverse impact on the legitimate interests of those concerned.’
... 84. The question is whether the new education system is adequate to provide pupils enrolled in minority education programmes with proficiency in both their mother tongue and Latvian. The mandatory proportion of the state language as the language of instruction at each level of education should be assessed separately in the light of this criterion. 85. As regards pre-school education, pursuant to Cabinet Regulation No. 716, the Latvian language is promoted in minority pre-school institutions (kindergartens) available for children between the ages of 1.5 and 7 years by using a bilingual approach. For children aged 5 and older (when pre-school education is mandatory), Latvian is the main means of communication in play-based lessons, except in specially organised activities with the aim of learning the national minority’s language and ethnic culture. 86. Cases concerning the compatibility of this Regulation with the Latvian Constitution are pending before the Constitutional Court. The Venice Commission should not and does not give an opinion on these constitutional issues. However, in the view of the Venice Commission, this Regulation is problematic from the point of view of proportionality and coherence of the structure of the education system. The Commission recalls that the importance of early learning in the mother tongue for the cognitive development of children, including the subsequent learning of other languages, is widely recognised by international organisations, and stressed by the Advisory Committee. According to the Hague Recommendations, ‘[t]he first years of education are of pivotal importance in a child’s development. Educational research suggests that the medium of teaching at pre-school and kindergarten levels should ideally be the child’s language.’
87. In a joint letter of 24 September 2019 addressed to the Latvian Government, three UN Special Rapporteurs expressed concern that Cabinet Regulation No. 716 ‘will harm minority’s children’s equal enjoyment of their human right to education in Latvia. The exclusion of their mother tongue from pre-school learning activities may hinder these minorities children’s learning.’ The Venice Commission shares these concerns. In its view, by imposing Latvian at the mandatory pre-school (5-7 years) level as the main communication and instruction language, the state does not leave enough room for schools to adapt their education programme and teaching methods to the needs of pupils and for pupils belonging to minorities to preserve and develop their mother tongue. It is also not consonant with the bilingual approach in the legislation as amended, which allows schools 50% of mother tongue instruction in grades 1-6. The Latvian authorities informed the Venice Commission that in pre-school education it is not strictly regulated that the teaching process is implemented only in the state language and that a bilingual approach can be used, as well as several activities are provided in the minority language. Given the importance of early learning in the mother tongue, the Commission is of the opinion that the legislation should be clear and unambiguous. The Commission, therefore, recommends that the Government should amend Cabinet Regulation No. 716 in order to return to the previous ‘bilingual approach’ in play-based lessons applied to the whole period of pre-school education. 88. As for basic education (grades 1 to 9), the instruction will be offered in accordance with three models of education: a school which chooses the first model will teach in grades 1 to 9 at least 80% of the subjects in Latvian; a school which opts for the second model will teach in grades 1 to 6 at least 50% and in grades 7 to 9 at least 80% in Latvian; a school which chooses the third model will obey the proportions of 50 and 80% but with more emphasis on the ethnic identity of students (see § 55 above). 89. As described above (§ 44), it is the founder of the school (public authorities ‒ local governments and the state ‒ for the state school, private founders for the private school) that will decide, by virtue of Section 33 para. 2 of the Education Law, whether to combine a basic education with a minority education programme and, if so, which model to choose. It is clear that in private schools the founders would take account of the requests of the parents regarding the model to be implemented in order to attract more students to their school. The proportion of the teaching in a minority language would therefore change according to the decision of each school. It will vary in grades 1 to 6 between 50% and 20% and in grades 7 to 9 it will be approximately 20%. 90. In the view of the Venice Commission, this system offers sufficient discretion and flexibility for schools to implement a programme adapted to the needs of students belonging to national minorities. It may also ensure the existence of a sufficient number of schools providing a minority education programme, especially in the areas where the minorities are strongly represented in the decision-making bodies of local authorities. Furthermore, it might be argued that even though in the future the number of state schools implementing such programmes may fall short of demand, the need for education in a minority language can always be met by the establishment of private schools implementing a minority education programme. However, it should be noted that many minority groups do not have the possibility of setting up their own private schools in sufficient numbers to meet the needs of their respective community. Therefore, in order to ensure that the right to minority language instruction is implemented adequately throughout Latvia, it is preferable that the legislation impose a clear obligation for a presence of sufficient state schools offering a minority education programme whenever there is enough demand for it. As to the maximum share of the teaching in minority languages at the level of basic education, for grades 1-6 it is quite adequate (50%), and for grades 7-9 it does not seem to be unreasonably low (20%). 91. As regards upper secondary education (grades 10 to 12), pursuant to Section 43 para. 2 of the General Education Law and Cabinet Regulation No. 416, it will be offered exclusively in Latvian, with the exception that a school may additionally include in the programme of general secondary education a specialised course, namely ‘Minority Language and Literature’, as well as non-standard subjects related to minority language, identity and integration into Latvian society. 92. The Venice Commission recalls its assessment regarding secondary education made in its 2017 opinion on Ukraine: ‘if the law were implemented in a manner that minority languages could only be taught as a subject and there would no longer be the possibility to teach other subjects in the minority language, this could clearly be a disproportionate interference with the existing rights of minorities’ (§ 122). However, it could be acceptable if the law enables the teaching of some subjects in minority languages on condition that ‘the scope of this teaching will be sufficient to enable the students to attain a high level of oral and written proficiency, enabling them also to address complex issues’ (§ 123). This recommendation is also valid in the case of the upper secondary education in Latvia. The authorities should ensure that each school will have a possibility to implement a sufficient proportion of education at upper secondary level in the minority language in order to enable students to attain an adequate level of proficiency in their mother tongue. 93. In the case of Latvia, the Law does not clarify whether the above-mentioned course ‘Minority Language and Literature’ and other non-standard subjects related to minority language, identity and integration into Latvian society may or may not be in a minority language. The only condition expressly laid down by the Law (i.e. Section 43 of the General Education Law) is that by including these subjects the school cannot exceed the number of lessons per week (36 lessons) and per day (8 lessons) defined in Section 44 of the General Education Law. 94. This specific question was examined by the Constitutional Court in its judgment of 13 November 2019. Based on the preparatory work of the provision concerned, the Court came to the conclusion that the course ‘Minority Language and Literature’ and other specialised subjects that are not mentioned in the standard education programme are to be taught directly in the minority language. Therefore, according to the Constitutional Court, the use of minority languages in the context of general education provides persons belonging to national minorities with sufficient opportunity for the proper acquisition of their minority language and the preservation of their identity. 95. As interpreted by the Constitutional Court, Section 43 para. 2 of the General Education Law does not appear to constitute a disproportionate interference with the rights of persons belonging to minorities to learn their language, as it allows the teaching of some subjects in minority languages. The question of whether the scope of this teaching would be sufficient to enable students to attain a high level of oral and written proficiency would depend on the quality of the teaching, which should be ensured through administrative measures, e.g. monitoring, availability of the training courses, access to the teaching materials of high quality, etc. 96. As to the application to primary and secondary private schools of the mandatory Latvian language proportions, which were previously applicable only to state schools, the Venice Commission recalls that it examined a similar situation in its 2017 opinion on Ukraine where it pointed out that the application of the principle of compulsory education in the state language to private schools is in breach of Article 13 of the Framework Convention (§ 105). In its 2019 opinion on Ukraine, the Venice Commission welcomed Article 5 of the draft law on Complete Secondary Education as it confers on private schools the right to choose the language of education with the obligation for them to provide their students with proficiency in Ukrainian. It stated that ‘this provision implements a recommendation of the 2017 opinion (§ 105) and ensures the compliance with Article 13 of the Framework Convention under which Ukraine committed [itself] to recognise that persons belonging to a national minority have the right to set up and to manage their own private educational establishments.’ (§ 79). The Commission does not see any reason to depart from these observations in the case of Latvia. The Commission recalls that, in addition to the Framework Convention, Latvia has also ratified the UNESCO Convention Against Discrimination in Education under which it recognises the right of persons belonging to national minorities to carry on their own educational activities which include not only the maintenance of schools but also the use or the teaching of minority language (Article 5 para. 1 (c)). Therefore, to be in line with their international commitments, the authorities are advised to exempt private schools from the mandatory proportions of the use of the Latvian language applied to state schools implementing minority education programmes. 97. That said, pursuant to the Convention Against Discrimination in Education, the right of the members of national minorities to carry on their own educational activities should not be ‘exercised in a manner which prevents the members of these minorities from understanding the culture and language of the community as a whole and from participating in its activities’ (Article 5 para. 1 (c) i)). As to the Framework Convention, nothing in the wording of its Article 13, read in conjunction with its Article 14 para. 3, prevents the state parties from imposing an obligation on private schools to ensure that their students acquire proficiency in the state language to the same degree as in state schools. This means that the state parties are entitled to revoke a license to run a private school fulfilling the obligation of compulsory schooling if the school does not meet the condition of proficiency in the state language.
... 101. Finally, and in general, it is also advisable that the education authorities constantly monitor the quality of education received by pupils attending minority education programmes in order to ensure not only that the new language proportions are implemented effectively, but also that the changes introduced to the education system do not undermine the quality of education and disproportionately reduce the opportunity for pupils to have good command of their mother tongue. This is crucial in order to identify in a timely manner possible adverse effect of the new amendments on the quality of education including the teaching of and in a minority language and to make the necessary adjustments in due course. 102. For the same reasons, it is also necessary that the education authorities spare no effort to provide the schools concerned with the necessary teaching materials and the teachers with opportunities to continue to improve both their Latvian and minority language skills in order to ensure their ability to implement the study process in Latvian, the minority language and bilingually. 2. Compliance with the principle of non-discrimination
... 105. As described earlier in this opinion, Section 9 of the Education Law provides for differential treatment in education between persons belonging to national minorities whose native language is not one of the EU official languages and persons belonging to national minorities whose native language is one of the EU official languages. It appears also to envisage differential treatment of persons belonging to national minorities, who attend schools which implement minority education programmes, compared to persons belonging to national minorities, who attend schools which implement minority education programmes in accordance with bilateral or multilateral international agreements binding upon Latvia. These two cases should be examined separately.
a. Differential treatment based on bilateral or multilateral international agreements
... 108. The Commission wishes to underline the importance of the interstate cooperation and support from kin-states in the field of education as a useful and effective means of promoting the efforts to preserve and develop minorities’ language and culture. Bilateral and multilateral agreements with kin-states may be used to provide subsidies for the maintenance of school premises and to provide schools implementing minority education programmes with teaching staff, textbooks and other teaching and learning materials. They may also serve to set up exchange programmes between schools of different countries. The conclusion of such agreements, therefore, pursues a legitimate aim. The Commission is also convinced that the authorities would avoid introducing in the future unjustified differences in treatment between minorities on the basis of such agreements.
b. Differential treatment between EU and non-EU languages
109. In the Latvian education system, there are at least four cases where there is differential treatment between EU and non-EU languages:
•          Section 9 of the Education Law provides for a possibility to establish schools of basic and secondary education in which study subjects are completely or partially implemented in a foreign language in order to ensure the learning of other official languages of the EU in conformity with the conditions of the relevant state education standard;
•          Pursuant to Cabinet Regulation No. 747, in both state and private schools of basic and secondary education, unlike the EU languages which can be taught as the first foreign language, the non-EU languages can be taught only as the second foreign language (Annex 12, para. 12);
•          Pursuant to Section 56 para. 3 (1) and (2) of the Law on Higher Education Institutions and Section 9 para. 31 (1) of the Education Law, ‘study programmes which are acquired by foreign students in Latvia, and study programmes, which are implemented within the scope of co-operation provided for in European Union programmes and international agreements may be implemented in the official languages of the European Union.’ ‘Not more than one-fifth of the credit point amount of a study programme may be implemented in the official languages of the European Union’;
•          Pursuant to Section 56 para. 3 (4) of the Law on Higher Education Institutions, in higher education institutions ‘joint study programmes may be implemented in the official languages of the EU’. 110. The Venice Commission stresses that it is in the sovereign power of a state to decide - within the limits set by its international obligations, especially those stemming from the Framework Convention and the ECHR - which foreign languages (or other courses) will be included into the obligatory school curriculum. The preference given to certain foreign languages, for instance other EU languages, is not per se a violation of the Framework Convention as long as the rights granted by this Convention are respected and more specifically as long as members of national minorities have sufficient opportunities to learn (in) their minority language. The Commission refers in this context to the different recommendations made in §§ 87, 90, 96, and 100-102. 111. This preferential treatment is neither a violation of Article 14 of the ECHR, if there is an ‘objective and reasonable justification’ for it, which implies that it pursues a ‘legitimate aim’ and that there is a ‘reasonable relationship of proportionality’ between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised. 112. The authorities met in Riga explained to the rapporteurs that, as Latvia is an EU member, it is its duty to provide its citizens with sufficient opportunities to acquire knowledge of EU languages. The acquisition of other EU languages, especially English, is important for citizens, as it allows them to live and work in other EU countries. It is also important for consolidating the European integration of Latvian citizens and forging a European identity amongst citizens. Furthermore, in its judgments of 23 April 2019 and 13 November 2019, the Constitutional Court pointed out that the promotion of the learning of EU languages is an objective of Latvia, which follows from the Preamble of the Satversme (‘Latvia protects its national interests and promotes sustainable and democratic development of a united Europe’) and the principle of good faith in international law. Finally, in the view of the authorities and the Constitutional Court, unlike minority education programmes, the possibility of exceptionally obtaining education in an EU official language is not intended to develop the culture and identity of the students concerned, but to foster the learning of a foreign language in depth. 113. In view of the importance of improving the knowledge of EU official languages amongst Latvian citizens in order to facilitate their free movement and residence in the EU as well as their access to the EU labour market, the Venice Commission considers that the provisions mentioned in § 109 pursue a legitimate aim. The Venice Commission considers moreover that the principle of proportionality is respected to the extent that the state offers adequate opportunities for persons belonging to minorities whose mother tongue is not an EU language to attain a sufficiently high level of oral and written proficiency in their language. If this condition is fulfilled, the Commission is of the opinion that the differential treatment in question would not be unacceptable from the point of view of the principle of non-discrimination, taking into account the margin of appreciation the state enjoys in this field. 114. In this regard, the Venice Commission recalls that it examined in its 2017 opinion on Ukraine an analogous differential treatment in the Ukrainian legislation. In that opinion the Commission stated that the less favourable treatment of the Russian language (and other languages which are not official languages of the EU) was not justifiable in the light of the principle of non-discrimination unless a more convincing justification is provided (§ 114). The Commission wishes however to underline two important differences that exist between Latvia and Ukraine in this regard. In the first place, and most importantly, unlike Ukraine, Latvia is member of the EU, which is a crucial element to be taken into consideration when assessing the legitimacy of the differential treatment. Moreover, unlike the Constitution of Ukraine where there is a clear reference to the ‘free development, use and protection of Russian’ (Article 10), the constitutional order of Latvia does not give specific recognition to any minority language. IV. Conclusion
115. The Venice Commission examined the recent amendments to the Latvian legislation on education in minority languages, which are presented by the authorities as part of a long-standing reform of the education system, comprising gradual changes in the use of the state language and minority languages – especially Russian − in favour of the state language. 116. The Commission is aware of the specific historical developments that Latvia has gone through over the past decades and centuries and the impact on the linguistic situation in the country that these developments have had, resulting in a state of asymmetric bilingualism. The statistical data and other information provided by the education authorities of Latvia suggest that there might be a need in Latvia to foster mastering of the state language in particular amongst pupils attending minority education programmes. The Commission stresses that increasing the proportion of the use of the Latvian language in minority education programmes in order to improve proficiency of pupils attending such programmes is a legitimate aim. 117. Even though the Venice Commission is not in a position to determine the weight of the various reasons behind the lack of proficiency of pupils enrolled in minority education programmes, increasing the proportions of the use of Latvian in those programmes does not appear to be inappropriate to achieve the legitimate aim, i.e. to raise proficiency in Latvian amongst pupils concerned by the reform. That said, the reform can reach its objective only if it is coupled with additional measures necessary to provide schools implementing minority education programmes with appropriate teaching methodologies, educational materials as well as teachers who are proficient in Latvian. 118. While increasing the mandatory proportion of the Latvian language, the new legislation leaves ample room for instruction in minority languages at the level of [primary] education, and some room for such instruction in secondary education. This is to be welcomed. The answer to the question of whether the minority education system as redesigned by the recent amendments will or will not enable persons enrolled on these programmes to attain a high level of proficiency in their mother tongue depends on several factors, especially the availability and quality of teachers and teaching materials, etc. 119. However, the system introduced by the recent legislation for pre-school education needs to be reconsidered in order to ensure that persons belonging to national minorities will continue to enjoy the possibility of acquiring proficiency in their language, which is essential for the protection and promotion of the identity of minorities as well as for the preservation of the linguistic diversity within the Latvian society. In the opinion of the Commission, as long as Latvia ensures this possibility for all national minorities, it would be acceptable to privilege the teaching in some languages – i.e. EU official languages – which are at the same time languages of some national minorities. Furthermore, private schools should be allowed to provide education in minority languages. The Commission recalls that securing the right of persons belonging to minorities to preserve and develop their language and their ethnic and cultural identity is an obligation for Latvia stemming from its international commitments. 120. Even though the overall direction of the recent amendments subject to the present opinion is not a reason for concern, some of the changes are, nevertheless, open to criticism as they do not strike a fair balance between the protection of the rights of minorities and their languages and the promotion of the state language. In order to ensure such a balance, the Venice Commission recommends to:
-          amend Cabinet Regulation No. 716 in order to return to the previous ‘bilingual approach’ in play-based lessons applied to the whole period of pre-school education;
-          take the necessary legislative and other measures to ensure that state schools offer a minority education programme whenever there is sufficient demand for it;
-          exempt private schools from the mandatory proportions of the use of the Latvian language applied to state schools implementing minority education programmes;
-          consider enlarging the possibilities for persons belonging to national minorities to have access to higher education in their minority language, either in their own higher education institutions, or at least in state higher education institutions;
-          constantly monitor the quality of education received by pupils attending minority education programmes in order to ensure that the changes introduced into the education system do not undermine the quality of education and disproportionately reduce the opportunity for pupils to have good command of their minority language. The education authorities should also provide schools implementing minority education programmes with the necessary teaching materials and the teachers of these schools with adequate opportunities to continue to improve their Latvian and minority language skills in order to ensure their ability to implement the study process in Latvian, minority language and bilingually.”
Case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union
94. On 7 September 2022 the Grand Chamber of the CJEU, in a preliminary ruling on request from the Latvian Constitutional Court in the context of proceedings concerning language of instruction in universities, assessed whether Articles 49 and 56 of the TFEU and Article 16 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (“the Charter”) must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which, in principle, obliges higher education institutions to provide teaching solely in the official language of that Member State (case of Boriss Cilevičs and Others, C-391/20, EU:C:2022:638) (see paragraph 76 above). It held as follows (references omitted):
“The justification for the restriction on the freedom guaranteed by Article 49 TFEU
65. According to well-established case-law, a restriction on the freedom of establishment is permissible only if, in the first place, it is justified by an overriding reason in the public interest and, in the second place, it observes the principle of proportionality, which means that it is suitable for securing, in a consistent and systematic manner, the attainment of the objective pursued and does not go beyond what is necessary in order to attain it ...
–  The existence of an overriding reason in the public interest
... 70. Accordingly, the objective of promoting and encouraging the use of one of the official languages of a Member State must be regarded as being a legitimate objective which, in principle, justifies a restriction on the obligations imposed by the freedom of establishment enshrined in Article 49 TFEU ...
–  The suitability of the restriction concerned for ensuring the attainment of the objective pursued
71. As is apparent from paragraph 65 above, it is still necessary to assess whether the legislation at issue in the main proceedings is suitable for securing the attainment of that legitimate objective and does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve it. 72. In that regard, is ultimately for the referring court, which has sole jurisdiction to assess the facts of the main proceedings and interpret the national legislation, to determine whether and to what extent such legislation satisfies those conditions ... 73. However, the Court of Justice, which is called on to provide answers of use to that court, may provide guidance based on the documents relating to the main proceedings and on the written observations which have been submitted to it, in order to enable the court in question to give judgment ... 74. In the present case, a Member State’s legislation which provides for an obligation on higher education institutions to use, in principle, the official language of that Member State appears to be suitable for attaining the objective of defending and promoting that language. That legislation encourages the use of the language in question by the whole of the population concerned and ensures that the same language is also used in education at university level. 75. That said, it must be pointed out that the legislation in question can be regarded as capable of ensuring that objective only if it genuinely reflects a concern to attain it and is implemented in a consistent and systematic manner ... 76. In view of their limited scope, the exceptions laid down in the same legislation are not such as to hinder attainment of the objective of defending and promoting the official language of the Member State in question. 77. Furthermore, it should be noted that, in the present case, as the referring court states, the Latvian legislation provides that the compulsory use of Latvian does not relate to two private higher education institutions, whose operation is governed by special laws, thus allowing those two institutions to continue to offer courses of study in English or, in some circumstances, in another official language of the European Union. 78. As is apparent from the Latvian Government’s written reply to questions from [the CJEU], those two institutions were established by international agreements entered into between the Republic of Latvia and the Kingdom of Sweden. It is apparent from the request for a preliminary ruling that [section 56(3)(1) of the Law on Higher Educational Institutions] specifically provides that a course taking place in Latvia may be provided in an official EU language other than Latvian where that course is organised in the framework of international agreements. 79. In those circumstances, although it is true that the two higher education institutions whose operation is governed by special laws enjoy a special status, since education is provided there in English or, in some circumstances, in another official EU language, there is nothing, however, to prevent other institutions from being able to provide education in an official EU language other than Latvian, provided that their operation comes under an international agreement entered into between the Republic of Latvia and other States. 80. It follows that the derogation arrangement applicable to those two institutions could apply to any institution in a similar situation. Moreover, that category of institution is significantly different from those establishments subject to the basic obligation in the present case to teach in the Latvian language, since the former category of institution forms part of a special kind of international university cooperation. Consequently, having regard to the specific objective which they pursue and in view of their limited scope, the existence of provisions which allow certain higher education institutions to benefit from a derogation arrangement, in the context of cooperation provided for by EU programmes and by international agreements, is not such as to render the legislation at issue in the main proceedings inconsistent.
–  The necessity and proportionality of the restriction concerned
81. It must be borne in mind that measures which restrict a fundamental freedom may be justified only if the objective pursued cannot be attained by less restrictive measures ... 82. Furthermore, it is not indispensable for the restrictive measure issued by the authorities of a Member State to correspond to a conception shared by all Member States as regards the precise way in which the fundamental right or legitimate interest in question is to be protected. On the contrary, the need for, and proportionality of, the provisions adopted are not excluded merely because one Member State has chosen a system of protection different from that adopted in another State ... 83. It is true that Member States enjoy broad discretion in their choice of the measures capable of achieving the objectives of their policy of protecting the official language, since such a policy constitutes a manifestation of national identity for the purposes of Article 4(2) TEU ... However, the fact remains that that discretion cannot justify a serious undermining of the rights which individuals derive from the provisions of the Treaties enshrining their fundamental freedoms ... 84. It must be stated that legislation of a Member State which would require, with no exceptions, that higher education courses of study be provided in the official language of that Member State would exceed what is necessary and proportionate for attaining the objective pursued by that legislation, namely the defence and promotion of that language. In actual fact, such legislation would lead to the outright imposition of the use of that language in all higher education courses, to the exclusion of any other language and without taking account of reasons that may justify different higher education courses of study being offered in other languages. 85. On the other hand, Member States may introduce, in principle, an obligation to use their official language in those courses, provided that such an obligation is accompanied by exceptions that ensure that a language other than the official language may be used in the context of university education. 86. In the present case, such exceptions should, in order not to exceed what is necessary for that purpose, allow the use of a language other than Latvian, at least as regards education provided in the context of European or international cooperation, and education relating to culture and languages other than Latvian. 87. In the light of all the foregoing considerations, the answer to the questions referred is that Article 49 TFEU must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which, in principle, obliges higher education institutions to provide teaching solely in the official language of that Member State, in so far as such legislation is justified on grounds related to the protection of its national identity, that is to say, that it is necessary and proportionate to the protection of the legitimate aim pursued.”
Recommendations adopted under the auspices of the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (“OSCE”)
95. The relevant parts of the Hague Recommendations regarding the Education Rights of National Minorities (recommended by the OSCE High Commissioner on National Minorities, published on 1 October 1996) read as follows:
“THE SPIRIT OF INTERNATIONAL INSTRUMENTS
1)  The right of persons belonging to national minorities to maintain their identity can only be fully realised if they acquire a proper knowledge of their mother tongue during the educational process. At the same time, persons belonging to national minorities have a responsibility to integrate into the wider national society through the acquisition of a proper knowledge of the State language.
2)  In applying international instruments which may benefit persons belonging to national minorities, States should consistently adhere to the fundamental principles of equality and non-discrimination.
3)  It should be borne in mind that the relevant international obligations and commitments constitute international minimum standards. It would be contrary to their spirit and intent to interpret these obligations and commitments in a restrictive manner.
... PUBLIC AND PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS
8)  In accordance with international law, persons belonging to national minorities, like others, have the right to establish and manage their own private educational institutions in conformity with domestic law. These institutions may include schools teaching in the minority language.
9)  Given the right of persons belonging to national minorities to establish and manage their own educational institutions, States may not hinder the enjoyment of this right by imposing unduly burdensome legal and administrative requirements regulating the establishment and management of these institutions.
10)  Private minority language educational institutions are entitled to seek their own sources of funding without any hindrance or discrimination from the State budget, international sources and the private sector. MINORITY EDUCATION AT PRIMARY AND SECONDARY LEVELS
11)  The first years of education are of pivotal importance in a child’s development. Educational research suggests that the medium of teaching at pre-school and kindergarten levels should ideally be the child’s language. Wherever possible, States should create conditions enabling parents to avail themselves of this option.
12)  Research also indicates that in primary school, the curriculum should ideally be taught in the minority language. The minority language should be taught as a subject on a regular basis. The official State language should also be taught as a subject on a regular basis preferably by bilingual teachers who have a good understanding of the children’s cultural and linguistic background. Towards the end of this period, a few practical or non-theoretical subjects should be taught through the medium of the State language. Wherever possible, States should create conditions enabling parents to avail themselves of this option.
13)  In secondary school, a substantial part of the curriculum should be taught through the medium of the minority language. The minority language should be taught as a subject on a regular basis. The State language should also be taught as a subject on a regular basis, preferably by bilingual teachers who have a good understanding of the children’s cultural and linguistic background. Throughout this period, the number of subjects taught in the State language, should gradually be increased. Research findings suggest that the more gradual the increase, the better for the child.
14)  The maintenance of the primary and secondary levels of minority language education depends a great deal on the availability of teachers trained in all disciplines in the mother tongue. Therefore, ensuing from their obligation to provide adequate opportunities for minority language education, States should provide adequate facilities for the appropriate training of teachers and should facilitate access to such training.”
Comparative material
96. The following member States of the Council of Europe have enshrined in their Constitution only one official language of that State: Albania, Andorra, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Estonia, France, Hungary, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Moldova, Monaco, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Türkiye and Ukraine (source: Elkins, Zachary, Tom Ginsburg, James Melton. Constitute: The World’s Constitutions to Read, Search, and Compare (consulted at constituteproject.org)). THE LAW
        JOINDER OF THE APPLICATIONS AND SCOPE OF THE CASE
97. Having regard to the similar subject matter of the applications, the Court finds it appropriate to examine them jointly in a single judgment.
98.

Outcome for Article 14: no_violation