Constitutional Court of the Republic of Latvia
14 September 2005
Facts:
20 Members of the Latvian Parliament challenged the Article 59 of the Education Law which permitted state or municipal funding of private schools only if they offer accredited programs in the state language. They argued that this requirement imposed double financial burdens on minority-language families, who paid taxes and then had to fund their children’s education in private minority-language schools.
Complaint:
The applicants claimed that the provision violated: Article 91 of the Latvian Constitution, which prohibits discrimination on unspecified grounds, including language, as well as Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, concerning the right to education without discrimination. They contended that this requirement discriminated against private schools that provided education in minority languages and thereby infringed upon minority rights.
Court’s Ruling:
The Constitutional Court struck down the provision, finding it unconstitutional. The Court reasoned that while promoting proficiency in the Latvian language is a legitimate aim, conditioning state funding for private schools on instruction being conducted only in Latvian was disproportionate.
It held that the measure discriminated against private schools using minority languages, especially those operated by ethnic minorities. Furthermore, the restriction interfered with the constitutional right to education under Article 112 of the Constitution and violated the principle of equality under Article 91. Parents of minority backgrounds were placed at a disadvantage, as they would have to choose between funding their children’s education themselves or forgoing instruction in their native language. There was no compelling evidence that such a funding restriction was necessary to ensure language acquisition, especially since minority-language education remained accessible in the public system. The state is not obliged to fund every private school, but once it chooses to support private education, it must do so without unjustified discrimination.
As a result, the Court concluded that the provision was incompatible with the Constitution and the Convention, particularly regarding equality, minority rights, and access to education.