One more case initiated with respect to the norm that determines the language of instruction in education
On 4 March 2019, the Constitutional Court initiated the case “On Compliance of Section 1 (1) of the Law of 22 March 2018 “Amendments to the Education Law” with the Second Sentence of Article 91 and the First Sentence of Article 112 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia”.
The Contested Norm
Section 1 (1) of the law of 22 March 2018 “Amendments to the Education Law”:
“In Section 9:
to add to this Section part 11 in the following wording:
“(11) At private institutions of education, the general education and professional education on the level of primary and secondary education shall be acquired in the official language.””
Norms of Higher Legal Force
The second sentence of Article 91 of the Satversme of the Republic of Latvia (hereinafter – the Satversme): “Human rights shall be realised without discrimination of any kind.”
The first sentence of Article 112 of the Satversme: “Everyone has the right to education.”
The Facts
The case has been initiated with respect to an application submitted by students, who are obtaining general education on the basic level at a private institution of education in their native language – the Russian language. The contested norm provides that the applicants will have to acquire the general education on the basic and secondary level, at the private institution of education, in the official language. The applicants hold that this obligation is discriminatory and restricts their right to education established in the Satversme. They note that by the contested norm equal treatment of minority representatives and persons, whose native language is the official language, has been allowed in different circumstances. The applicants hold that this treatment discriminates against the minority representatives on the grounds of ethnic origin.
The applicants hold that the restriction on fundamental rights had not been established by a law adopted in due procedure and that the objections made by society have not been taken into account in the drafting of the contested norm. It is alleged that the legitimate aim thereof – to consolidate the use of the official language – cannot be reached by restricting the rights of minority representatives. Moreover, the applicants underscore that the legitimate aim of the restriction could be reached by measures that are less restrictive upon a person’s rights, i.e., by enhancing the studies of the official language at the private institutions of education, where the general education on the basic and the secondary level is ensured in the framework of a minority education process.
The Legal Proceedings
The Constitutional Court has requested the Saeima to submit to the Constitutional Court a written reply presenting the facts of the case and the legal reasoning by 7 May 2019.
The term for preparing the case is 4 August 2019. The Court will decide on the form and the date of legal proceedings after the case has been prepared.
Linked case: 2019-04-01