ПОСТАНОВЛЕНИЕ Европейского суда по правам человека от 07.12.1976"КЬЕЛДСЕН (kjeldsen), БУСК МАДСЕН (busk madsen) И ПЕДЕРСЕН (pedersen) ПРОТИВ ДАНИИ" [рус. (извлечение), англ.]

лиц, призванных на военную службу, утверждающих, что их религиозные или философские убеждения не позволяют им носить оружие. Эти органы должны уважать идеологию заинтересованных лиц, если такая идеология ясно сформулирована.
Различия между информацией, относящейся к знаниям о человеческой сексуальности в целом, и информацией, касающейся сексуальной практики, признаны в самом датском законодательстве. В то время как частные школы по закону должны включать в свои учебные программы курс биологии о воспроизводстве человека, им дан выбор - соблюдать или нет другие правила, обязательные для государственных школ, в отношении вопросов секса. Сам законодатель признает, что информация о сексуальной практике может быть отделена от другой информации на эту тему, и поэтому освобождение, предоставляемое детям в отношении конкретного курса первой категории, не мешает интеграции в школьную программу научных знаний на эту тему.
Датский закон о государственных школах никоим образом не освобождает детей тех родителей, которые имеют религиозные убеждения, отличные от убеждений законодателей, от посещения всех занятий по половому воспитанию. Поэтому из этого следует, что датский закон в рамках вышесказанного не соответствует второму предложению статьи 2 Протокола N 1.
На этот вывод не влияет право родителей посылать детей в частную школу, субсидируемую государством, или обучать их дома. С одной стороны, право родителей - это чисто индивидуальное право, в то время как открытие частной школы всегда предполагает существование определенной группы лиц, разделяющих определенные убеждения. Поскольку государство должно уважать религиозные убеждения родителей, даже если существует одна супружеская пара, чьи убеждения в отношении развития сознания их детей отличаются от убеждений большинства населения в стране или в данной конкретной школе, оно может исполнить эту конкретную обязанность, только освободив детей от занятий, касающихся сексуальной практики. Более того, нельзя не признать, что образование в частной школе, даже в той, которая субсидируется государством, и обучение дома всегда влекут за собой материальные издержки для родителей. Таким образом, если заявители не будут иметь права освобождать своих детей от занятий, о которых идет речь, будет существовать неоправданная дискриминация, противоречащая статье 14 Конвенции, ставящая их в неравное положение с родителями, чьи религиозные и моральные убеждения соответствуют убеждениям датских законодателей.



EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN RIGHTS
CASE OF KJELDSEN, BUSK MADSEN AND PEDERSEN
JUDGMENT
(Strasbourg, 7.XII.1976)
In the case of Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen,
The European Court of Human Rights, sitting, in accordance with Article 43 (art. 43) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter referred to as "the Convention") and Rules 21 and 22 of the Rules of Court, as a Chamber composed of the following judges:
Mr. G. Balladore Pallieri, President,
Mr. A. Verdross,
Mr. M. Zekia,
Mrs. H. Pedersen,
Mr. S. Petren,
Mr. R. Ryssdal,
Mr. D. Evrigenis,
and also Mr. M.-A. Eissen, Registrar, and Mr. H. Petzold, Deputy Registrar,
Having deliberated in private on 3 and 4 June and then on 5 November 1976,
Delivers the following judgment, which was adopted on the last-mentioned date:
PROCEDURE
1. The case of Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen was referred to the Court by the European Commission of Human Rights (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission"). The case originated in three applications (nos. 5095/71, 5920/72 and 5926/72) against the Kingdom of Denmark lodged with the Commission in 1971 and 1972 by Viking and Annemarie Kjeldsen, Arne and Inger Busk Madsen, and Hans and Ellen Pedersen, all parents of Danish nationality; the joinder of the said applications was ordered by the Commission on 19 July 1973.
2. The Commission"s request, to which was attached the report provided for under Article 31 (art. 31) of the Convention, was filed with the registry of the Court on 24 July 1975, within the period of three months laid down by Articles 32 para. 1 and 47 (art. 32-1, art. 47). The request referred to Articles 44 and 48 (art. 44, art. 48) and to the declaration made on 7 April 1972 by the Kingdom of Denmark recognising the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46) (art. 46). The purpose of the Commission"s request is to obtain a decision from the Court as to whether or not the facts of the case disclose a breach by the respondent State of its obligations under Article 2 of the Protocol (P1-2) of 20 March 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "Protocol No. 1"); it also makes reference to Articles 8, 9 and 14 (art. 8, art. 9, art. 14) of the Convention.
3. On 26 July 1975, in the presence of the Registrar, the President of the Court drew by lot the names of five of the seven judges called upon to sit as members of the Chamber; Mrs. H. Pedersen, the elected judge of Danish nationality, and Mr. G. Balladore Pallieri, the President of the Court, were ex officio members under Article 43 (art. 43) of the Convention and Rule 21 para. 3 (b) of the Rules of Court respectively. One of the members of the Chamber, namely Mr. J. Cremona, was subsequently prevented from taking part in the consideration of the case; he was replaced by the first substitute judge, Mr. M. Zekia.
Mr. Balladore Pallieri assumed the office of President of the Chamber in accordance with Rule 21 para. 5.
4. The President of the Chamber ascertained, through the Registrar, the views of the Agent of the Government of the Kingdom of Denmark (hereinafter referred to as "the Government") and of the delegates of the Commission regarding the procedure to be followed. By an Order of 8 September 1975, the President of the Chamber decided that the Government should file a memorial within a time-limit expiring on 1 December 1975 and that the delegates of the Commission should be entitled to file a memorial in reply within two months of receipt of the Government"s memorial.
5. On 12 November 1975, the Agent of the Government advised the Registrar of his intention to contest the jurisdiction of the Court in the present case.
In accordance with the leave granted by the President of the Chamber, the Government"s memorial, filed with the registry on 29 November 1975, dealt exclusively with this preliminary question. The Government referred therein to the declaration whereby, on 7 April 1972, they recognised "the compulsory jurisdiction" of the Court "ipso facto and without special agreement, in respect of any other Contracting Party to [the Convention] accepting the same obligations, subject to reciprocity". In conclusion, they submitted:
(i) that the said declaration "is expressly limited to cases brought before the Court by another declarant State";
(ii) "that such limitation of the scope of declarations made under Article 46 (art. 46) is not excluded either by the provision or by the structure of the Convention";
(iii) "that in any event" the Government "cannot be held to be subject to the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court beyond the express wording" of their declaration.
Emphasising in addition that they had not accepted ad hoc the jurisdiction of the Court as regards the instant case (Article 48 of the Convention) (art. 48), the Government invited the Court to find that it had "no jurisdiction to deal with the merits of the present cases".
6. By a message received at the registry on 16 January 1976, the Agent of the Government informed the Registrar that, following a debate the previous day in the Danish Parliament, his Government had "decided to withdraw with immediate effect [their] preliminary objection, thus accepting ad hoc the jurisdiction of the Court".
7. At a meeting in Strasbourg on 20 January 1976, the Chamber took cognisance of the said message and instructed the President to advise the Government that formal note thereof had been taken; this task the President discharged by means of an Order of 28 January.
The Chamber noted that its jurisdiction was henceforth established for the case at issue, whether on the basis of the special consent expressed in that message or by virtue of the general declaration made by the Kingdom of Denmark on 7 April 1972 under Article 46 (art. 46) of the Convention, as the delegates of the Commission contended in a memorial filed with the registry on 26 January 1976.
8. By the same Order of 28 January 1976, the President of the Chamber settled the written procedure as regards the merits of the case. Having consulted, through the Registrar, the Agent of the Government and the delegates of the Commission in this connection, he decided that the Government should file a memorial not later than 10 March 1976 and that the delegates of the Commission should be entitled to file a memorial in reply within two months of receipt of the Government"s memorial.
The Government"s memorial was received at the registry on 11 March, that of the delegates on 12 May 1976.
9. On 20 March 1976, the President of the Chamber instructed the Registrar to invite the Commission to produce certain documents, which were communicated to the registry on 26 March.
10. After consulting, through the Registrar, the Agent of the Government and the delegates of the Commission, the President of the Chamber decided by an Order of 19 May 1976 that the oral hearings should open on 1 June 1976.
11. In a telegram of 13 May 1976 addressed to the Commission"s principal delegate, Mr. and Mrs. Kjeldsen declared that they withdrew their application. The Secretary to the Commission notified the Registrar of this on 21 May; he specified at the same time that, having considered the matter, the Commission had decided to request the Court not to strike the application out of its list.
Mr. and Mrs. Kjeldsen in addition wrote directly to the Registrar on 17 and 27 May 1976. In their letters, which were drafted in somewhat violent terms, they gave as the explanation for their "discontinuance" the far-reaching divergences between their own arguments and those of the applicants Busk Madsen and Pedersen. As they objected to the Commission"s having ordered the joinder of the three applications, they requested the Court, in the alternative, to postpone the hearings until a later date and to examine their case separately.
12. On 24 and 31 May and then on 1 June 1976, the Government communicated several documents to the Court.
13. The oral hearings were held in public at the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 1 and 2 June 1976.
There appeared before the Court:
- for the Government:
- Mr. A. Spang-Hanssen, Barrister at the Supreme Court of Denmark, Agent;
- Mr. J. Munck-Hansen, Head of Division at the Ministry of Education,
- Mr. T. Rechnagel, Head of Division at the Legal Department of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs,
- Mr. N. Eilschou-Holm, Head of Division at the Ministry of Justice, Advisers;
- for the Commission:
- Mr. F. Welter, Principal Delegate,
- Mr. J. Frowein, Delegate.
The Court heard addresses by Mr. Welter and Mr. Frowein for the Commission and by Mr. Spang-Hanssen for the Government, as well as their replies to questions put by the Court.
AS TO THE FACTS
14. The applicants, who are parents of Danish nationality, reside in Denmark. Mr. Viking Kjeldsen, a galvaniser, and his wife Annemarie, a schoolteacher, live in Varde; Mr. Arne Busk Madsen, a clergyman, and his wife Inger, a schoolteacher, come from {Abenra} <*>; Mr. Hans Pedersen, who is a clergyman, and Mrs. Ellen Pedersen have their home in {Alborg}.
--------------------------------
<*> Здесь и далее по тексту слова на национальном языке набраны латинским шрифтом и выделены фигурными скобками.
All three couples, having children of school age, object to integrated, and hence compulsory, sex education as introduced into State primary schools in Denmark by Act No. 235 of 27 May 1970, amending the State Schools Act (Lov om aendring af lov om folkeskolen, hereinafter referred to as "the 1970 Act").
Primary education in general
15. According to Article 76 of the Danish Constitution, all children have the right to free education in the State primary schools (folkeskolen), although parents are not obliged to enrol them there and may send them to a private school or instruct them at home.
During the school year 1970/71, a total of 716,665 pupils were attending 2,471 schools, of which 277 were private with 43,689 pupils. Some parents chose to educate their children at home.
16. At the time of the facts at issue, primary education in State schools was governed by the State Schools Act (Lov om folkeskolen) (a consolidated version of which was set out in Executive Order No. 279 of 8 July 1966), which had been amended on various occasions between 1966 and 1970.
Primary education lasted for nine years; a tenth year, as well as a pre-school year for children of five to six years, were voluntary.
The subjects taught in the first four years were Danish, writing, arithmetic, knowledge of Christianity (kristendomskundskab), history, geography, biology, physical training, music, creative art and needlework. In the fifth and sixth years, English and woodwork were added, and in the seventh year German, mathematics, natural sciences and domestic science. As from the eighth year the pupils were, to some extent, allowed to choose from these courses the subjects they preferred.
Under the Act, the Minister of Education determined the objectives of schooling and the local school authorities fixed the contents of the curriculum and the number of lessons. There were, however, two exceptions to this rule. Firstly, religious instruction was to be in conformity with the Evangelical Lutheran doctrine of the National Church, but children might be exempted therefrom. Secondly, the legislator had directed schools to include in their curricula, often in conjunction with traditional subjects, certain new topics such as road safety, civics, hygiene and sex education.
17. The administration of State schools in Denmark is largely decentralised. These institutions are run by the municipal council, the highest education authority in each of the some 275 municipalities in that country, as well as by a school commission and a school board.
The school commission (skolekommissionen) is as a general rule composed of eleven members of whom six are elected by the municipal council and five by the parents. The commission, in consultation with the teachers" council and within the limits

"КОНСУЛЬСКАЯ КОНВЕНЦИЯ МЕЖДУ СССР И РЕСПУБЛИКОЙ ОСТРОВА ЗЕЛЕНОГО МЫСА"(Вместе с "ПРОТОКОЛОМ К КОНСУЛЬСКОЙ КОНВЕНЦИИ...")(Заключена в г. Прае 27.11.1976)  »
Международное законодательство »
Читайте также