Lexploria

The European Commission of Human Rights sitting in private on

3 March 1986, the following members being present:

MM. C.A. NØRGAARD, President

G. SPERDUTI

J.A. FROWEIN

G. JÖRUNDSSON

S. TRECHSEL

B. KIERNAN

A.S. GÖZÜBÜYÜK

A. WEITZEL

J.C. SOYER

H.G. SCHERMERS

G. BATLINER

H. VANDENBERGHE

Mrs G.H. THUNE

Sir Basil HALL

Mr. H.C. KRÜGER, Secretary to the Commission

Having regard to Art. 25 of the Convention for the Protection of Human

Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (art. 25);

Having regard to the application introduced on 2 July 1985 by

B.S. against the United Kingdom and registered on

5 August 1985 under file No. 11674/85;

Having regard to the report provided for in Rule 40 of the Rules of

Procedure of the Commission;

Having deliberated;

Decides as follows:

THE FACTS

The applicant is a British citizen, born in 1942 and is resident in

Brierly Hill, West Midlands. The facts as submitted by the applicant

may be summarised as follows.

In April 1985, the applicant's son was sent home from Thorns

Comprehensive School for not wearing a tie. Since her son was due to

leave school on 24 May 1985, the applicant refused to incur the

expense of buying one. The applicant's son was summoned to attend the

headmaster's office each morning for seven days which caused him

considerable humiliation. He was threatened with expulsion, though

this was later withdrawn.

The applicant wrote to the acting headmaster explaining her reasons

for her attitude, namely that the question of personal clothing was a

private and family matter. She refused to go to the school to discuss

the matter.

The applicant complained to the Local Education Authority which

explained that it was their policy to allow the question of uniform to

be determined by the school governors. The applicant then applied to

the Secretary of State to intervene. She was told that while there

was nothing in the Education Acts or Schools Regulations dealing

specifically with clothing, uniforms were regarded as a matter of

school discipline under the responsibility of the headteachers and

governors.

On another occasion, the applicant's daughter, attending Mount

Pleasant Junior School suffered distress and humiliation, when at a

school assembly, those not in uniform were asked to stand and their

appearance commented on unfavourably. This procedure was repeated on

other occasions, but the applicant's daughter remained seated on her

instructions. The applicant complained to the Local Education

Authority, which suggested it was an internal matter to be dealt with

by discussion with the headmaster.

The applicant's son has now left school, but her daughter will in due

course be attending the same comprehensive school.

COMPLAINTS

The applicant complains that the conduct of the schools in humiliating

her children and herself in respect of their clothing constitutes an

interference with private and family life. The applicant acknowledges

that her children should meet certain standards of cleanliness,

tidiness and warmth in their dress at school, but submits that school

requirements of colour and particular types of clothing go beyond this

and constitute expensive and objectionable intrusion in their private

family life.

The applicant also complains that school uniform requirements and the

harassment resulting from infringement of those rules constitute an

interference with the right of her children to express themselves as

they wish in the way they dress.

The applicant further submits that the facts outlined above constitute

an interference with the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions in

that her children are not able to wear their personal clothing free

from harassment. Further, the daughter would also run the risk of

being sent home from school if she wears clothes of her own choice and

would thus be deprived of the right to education.

The applicant therefore invokes Arts. 8 and 10 of the Convention

(art. 8, art. 10) and Arts. 1 and 2 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1, P1-2).

THE LAW

1. The applicant complains that the school's conduct in enforcing

school uniform rules constitutes an interference with the private and

family life of her children and herself.

It is true that Art. 8 of the Convention (art. 8) guarantees to

everyone the right to respect for their private and family life.

The Commission recalls that in McFEELEY v. the United Kingdom,

Application No. 8317/78, D.R. 20 p. 44 and X. v. the United Kingdom,

Application No. 8231/78, D.R. 28 p. 5, it was held that the

requirement for prisoners to wear prison clothing was an interference

with their rights under Art. 8, para. 1 (art. 8-1). However, the

Commission considers that the conditions of life pertaining to penal

institutions are totally distinct from the facts of the present case

and that the nature and extent of the rules differ to such a degree

that they cannot be equated. Prison uniforms retain a certain stigma

and mark a particular status. Prison uniforms are also worn

continuously whether the prisoner is working or at leisure.

Therefore, after examining the complaint as it has been submitted, the

Commission concludes that any constraint imposed by rules as to dress

during school hours on school premises cannot be said to be so serious

as to constitute an interference with the right to respect for private

and family life contrary to Art. 8, para. 1 of the Convention

(art. 8-1).

It follows therefore that this part of the application must be

rejected as manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Art. 27,

para. 2 of the Convention (art. 27-2).

2. The applicant also complains that her children are prevented

from expressing themselves as they wish through their dress.

It is true Art. 10 of the Convention (art. 10) guarantees to everyone

the right to freedom of expression.

However, the Commission finds that although the right to freedom of

expression may include the right for a person to express his ideas

through the way he dresses, it has not been established on the facts

of the case that the applicant's children have been prevented from

expressing a particular opinion or idea by means of their clothing.

Further any rules regarding clothing only affect the children during

their attendance at school and they remain at liberty to express

themselves as they wish outside. The Commission concludes therefore

that an examination of this complaint as it has been submitted fails

to disclose any appearance of a violation of Art. 10 of the Convention

(art. 10).

It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being

manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Art. 27, para. 2 of the

Convention (art. 27-2).

3. The applicant further complains that the enforcement of rules

as to school uniform interferes with the right to peaceful enjoyment

of the family's possessions and they might lead to her daughter being

sent home from school.

It is true that Art. 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1) guarantees to everyone

the right to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions and that Art. 2

of Protocol No. 1 (P1-2) states that no one shall be denied the

right to education.

However, the Commission recalls that any threat to the applicant's

daughter of being sent home would only materialise if she fails to

obey the rules as to school uniform. The Commission also finds that

any requirements imposed by the rules as to school uniform cannot be

said to impose a constraint so serious as to constitute a violation

under Art. 1 of Protocol No. 1 (P1-1).

Accordingly, an examination of these complaints as submitted fails to

disclose any appearance of a violation of Arts. 1 and 2 of Protocol

No. 1 (P1-1, P1-2).

It follows that this part of the application must be rejected as being

manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Art. 27, para. 2

(art. 27-2).

For these reasons, the Commission

DECLARES THE APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE

Secretary to the Commission President of the Commission

(H.C. KRÜGER) (C.A. NØRGAARD)

Menu

STEVENS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

STEVENS v. THE UNITED KINGDOM

LEXI