Page 38 - Šolsko polje, XXXI, 2020, 3-4: Convention on the Rights of the Child: Educational Opportunities and Social Justice, eds. Zdenko Kodelja and Urška Štremfel
P. 38
šolsko polje, letnik xxxi, številka 3–4
society, having no more than basic knowledge and skills constitutes a bar-
rier to successful personal and professional development (Ponomaryovi v.
Bulgaria6, paras. 56–7). Any restriction of the right to education must be
predictable for those it applies to and follow a legitimate aim. A limitation
is only compatible with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 if there is a reasonable
relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim
sought to be achieved.
The ECtHR did not find any legitimate aim in the case Catan and
Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia. Transdniestria is a region in
Moldova that declared independence in 1991, but this has not been recog-
nised by the international community. In 1992, the crisis of Romanian-
language schools began when the Transdniestrian “Supreme Council”
adopted a ‘law on languages’ stipulating that Moldovan (another term for
the Romanian language spoken in Moldova) must be written in Cyrillic
instead of the Latin alphabet. To enforce this policy, the Transdnistrian
authorities forbade the use of Latin script in schools across Transdniestria.
However, eight Romanian-language schools, including the “Ștefan cel
Mare și Sfânt” lyceum, continued to use Latin script, at times clandestine-
ly. Consequently, the schools suffered from a vigorous campaign of intim-
idation by authorities, included being evicted from some school buildings,
vandalism of others, interrupted water and electricity supplies, and cum-
bersome border checks for goods as well as teachers and pupils in some
cases. A school from Grigoriopol was also evicted from its premises by
Transdniestris ‘police’ and forced to relocate 20 km away, in Moldovan-
controlled territory (Hamid, 2020). In this case, the ECtHR stressed the
fundamental importance of primary (and secondary) education for every
child’s personal development and future success. This made it impermis-
sible to interrupt the children’s education and force them and their par-
ents to make difficult choices for the sole purpose of entrenching the sep-
aratist ideology.
6 In this case, the applicants were Russian nationals who did not hold Bulgarian permanent
residence permits during the relevant period; nor did they otherwise fall into any category
that would have enabled them to avoid having to pay the fee charged (EUR 800 and EUR
2,600) to certain aliens undertaking their secondary education in Bulgaria under Bulgari-
an law. Both received permanent residence permits, but the Bulgarian court held that this
only prevented them from having to pay school fees in the future, not for fees charged
before residence was granted. They alleging they had been discriminated against in breach
of Article 14 of the ECHR and Article 2 of Protocol 1 because, unlike Bulgarian nationals
and certain other categories of alien, they had been required to pay fees in order to pursue
their secondary education. They also highlighted that they were children during the rele-
vant period and that, under Article 28 of the CRC, the state had a duty to assist children
become fully fledged members of society.
36
society, having no more than basic knowledge and skills constitutes a bar-
rier to successful personal and professional development (Ponomaryovi v.
Bulgaria6, paras. 56–7). Any restriction of the right to education must be
predictable for those it applies to and follow a legitimate aim. A limitation
is only compatible with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 if there is a reasonable
relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim
sought to be achieved.
The ECtHR did not find any legitimate aim in the case Catan and
Others v. the Republic of Moldova and Russia. Transdniestria is a region in
Moldova that declared independence in 1991, but this has not been recog-
nised by the international community. In 1992, the crisis of Romanian-
language schools began when the Transdniestrian “Supreme Council”
adopted a ‘law on languages’ stipulating that Moldovan (another term for
the Romanian language spoken in Moldova) must be written in Cyrillic
instead of the Latin alphabet. To enforce this policy, the Transdnistrian
authorities forbade the use of Latin script in schools across Transdniestria.
However, eight Romanian-language schools, including the “Ștefan cel
Mare și Sfânt” lyceum, continued to use Latin script, at times clandestine-
ly. Consequently, the schools suffered from a vigorous campaign of intim-
idation by authorities, included being evicted from some school buildings,
vandalism of others, interrupted water and electricity supplies, and cum-
bersome border checks for goods as well as teachers and pupils in some
cases. A school from Grigoriopol was also evicted from its premises by
Transdniestris ‘police’ and forced to relocate 20 km away, in Moldovan-
controlled territory (Hamid, 2020). In this case, the ECtHR stressed the
fundamental importance of primary (and secondary) education for every
child’s personal development and future success. This made it impermis-
sible to interrupt the children’s education and force them and their par-
ents to make difficult choices for the sole purpose of entrenching the sep-
aratist ideology.
6 In this case, the applicants were Russian nationals who did not hold Bulgarian permanent
residence permits during the relevant period; nor did they otherwise fall into any category
that would have enabled them to avoid having to pay the fee charged (EUR 800 and EUR
2,600) to certain aliens undertaking their secondary education in Bulgaria under Bulgari-
an law. Both received permanent residence permits, but the Bulgarian court held that this
only prevented them from having to pay school fees in the future, not for fees charged
before residence was granted. They alleging they had been discriminated against in breach
of Article 14 of the ECHR and Article 2 of Protocol 1 because, unlike Bulgarian nationals
and certain other categories of alien, they had been required to pay fees in order to pursue
their secondary education. They also highlighted that they were children during the rele-
vant period and that, under Article 28 of the CRC, the state had a duty to assist children
become fully fledged members of society.
36
