CASE OF OSMANOĞLU AND KOCABAŞ v. SWITZERLAND
No violation of Article 9 - Freedom of thought conscience and religion (Article 9-1 - Freedom of religion;Manifest religion or belief)
Alena Poláčková;Branko Lubarda;Georgios A. Serghides;Helen Keller;Helena Jäderblom;Luis López Guerra;Pere Pastor Vilanova
6. The applicants were born in 1976 and 1978 respectively and live in Basle. 7. The first applicant, who was born in Turkey, moved to Switzerland at the age of 10. On completing a business-studies course in Basle, he returned temporarily to Turkey to attend classes in Islamic studies; while there, he met the second applicant, who became his wife. She moved to Switzerland in 1999 under the provisions for family reunion. When the present application was lodged she was on a training course to become a playgroup leader (Spielgruppenleiterin). The first applicant speaks fluent Swiss German. 8. Three daughters were born to the applicants, on 8 July 1999, 22 June 2001 and 7 July 2006 respectively. The present application concerns only the first two daughters. They were initially enrolled in the Vogelsang primary school in Basle. The eldest daughter subsequently attended an “orientation school” (Orientierungsschule, between the primary and secondary levels). 9. Swimming lessons are part of the compulsory school curriculum; under the applicable legislation in the canton of Basle Urban, pupils cannot be exempted until they reach puberty (see paragraph 27 below). This fact was brought to the applicants’ attention on 11 August 2008 through a recommendation entitled “Guidelines on dealing with religious matters in schools” (see paragraph 27 below). The applicants, who are devout Muslims, refused to send their daughters to the swimming lessons on the grounds that their beliefs prohibited them from allowing their children to take part in mixed swimming lessons. They stated that although the Koran did not instruct women to cover their bodies until puberty, their beliefs required them to prepare their daughters for the precepts that would be applied to them from that point onwards. As the holders of parental responsibility for their daughters, the applicants alleged that there been a violation of their own rights. 10. By a letter of 13 August 2008, the Public Education Department of the Canton of Basle Urban (Erziehungsdepartement des Kantons Basel-Stadt) advised the applicants that under section 91 (9) of the Education Act of the Canton of Basle Urban (see paragraph 24 below), they were liable to a maximum fine of 1,000 Swiss francs (CHF) (around 923 euros (EUR)) each if their daughters did not comply with the obligation to attend school. 11. On 30 March 2010 the head teacher of the school held a meeting with the applicants in order to resolve the situation. The applicants continued to refuse to send their daughters to the swimming lessons. By letters of 30 March and 4 May 2010, the applicants were again invited to send their daughters to the swimming lessons. In spite of these attempts by the school, the applicants’ daughters continued to be absent from the swimming lessons. 12. On 4 May and 14 June 2010 the school authorities asked the Head of the Public Education Department to open fixed-penalty proceedings against the applicants. On 17 June 2010 the applicants were invited to comment again as part of those proceedings. 13. By a letter of 28 July 2010, the education authorities ordered the applicants to pay a fine of CHF 350 (about EUR 323) per parent and per child (a total of CHF 1,400 CHF – about EUR 1,292) for acting in breach of their parental duties (see section 91 (8) and (9) of the Education Act of the Canton of Basle Urban, paragraph 24 below). 14. An appeal by the applicants against that decision was dismissed by the Court of Appeal of the Canton of Basle Urban (Appellationsgericht des Kantons Basel-Stadt) on 30 May 2011. 15. Drawing on its leading decision of 24 October 2008 (see Federal Supreme Court judgment 135 I 79; paragraph 29 below), the Federal Supreme Court, by a judgment of 7 March 2012, dismissed an appeal by the applicants, holding that the authorities’ refusal to exempt their daughters from mixed swimming lessons in primary school had not breached the applicants’ right to freedom of conscience and belief. 16. It accepted that this refusal represented a breach of freedom of religion. Nonetheless, it considered that the swimming lessons formed part of the compulsory school curriculum in the Canton of Basle Urban and that this obligation had a sufficiently solid legal basis. It cited, firstly, section 22 of the Education Act of the Canton of Basle Urban, which stated that gymnastics was one of the compulsory lessons in primary school, and section 139 of the same Act, stating that at least three hours of the pupils’ weekly timetable was to be spent in physical education. It also held that, under section 17 of the Act, boys and girls at primary-school level were, in principle, to attend classes together. It further stated that, in accordance with section 68 of the Act, the precise organisation of this subject, especially the various lessons and the number of hours allocated to them, was set out in the curriculum, point 9.2.4 of which provided that swimming formed part of compulsory gymnastics and sports lessons. 17. The Federal Supreme Court then pointed out that pupils could be exempted from lessons or from certain subjects, and any such decision was to be taken by the school authorities at the request of teachers or of persons responsible for the children’s education (section 66 (5) and (6) of the Education Act; see paragraph 24 below). It noted that detailed information on exemptions was set out in point 34 of the School Regulations (Schulordnung) of the Canton of Basle Urban, and that the arrangements for dealing with religious issues in schools were included in a Recommendation (Handreichung) that had been issued by the Education Department of the Canton of Basle Urban in September 2007. It added that, under point 5.1 of that recommendation, exemption from swimming classes could only be granted to pupils who had reached the age of puberty. It also indicated that from the sixth year of school (that is, generally when pupils had reached the age of twelve), girls and boys attended physical education and swimming lessons separately (point 5.3 of the recommendation). 18. The Federal Supreme Court further held that the applicants’ argument that the recommendation had no legal validity was irrelevant in this case, in so far as, in its view, the recommendation was in any event merely a tool to assist in balancing the competing interests involved in reaching a decision on an exemption request. It also considered the fact that swimming was not taught in all the canton’s schools and that ice-skating, which also appeared as a lesson in the curriculum, was not taught at all in practice, to be irrelevant in assessing the legal basis. The Federal Supreme Court accordingly concluded that the measure had a valid legal basis. 19. As to the public interest and the proportionality of the interference, the Federal Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s judgment to the effect that it was of paramount importance to ensure that children were integrated, irrespective of their origin, culture or religion. It further considered that the interference was lessened by the fact that the swimming lessons were mixed only until the age of puberty, and that the impact of the measure was attenuated by the accompanying measures (separate changing rooms and showers, and the option of wearing a burkini). 20. The Federal Supreme Court also found irrelevant the applicants’ argument that their children were receiving private swimming lessons, holding that what was at stake for the children was not simply learning to swim, but also submitting to the conditions surrounding the teaching itself (äussere Bedingungen des Unterrichts). It held that the school’s function of social integration, valid in respect of all pupils, required that exemptions for swimming classes be granted only sparingly. The refusal to grant an exemption in the present case thus corresponded to its new practice, according to which educational obligations were, in principle, to be recognised as prevailing over compliance with the religious precepts (religiöse Gebote) of one part of the population. For that reason, the comparison with exemptions granted for medical reasons was also irrelevant. 21. Having regard to the foregoing factors, the Federal Supreme Court concluded that the refusal to grant an exemption from the mixed swimming classes had not breached the applicants’ right to freedom of religion.