## Facts

- Fritz and Marianna Konrad lived in Baden-Württemberg, Germany, with their primary-school-age children and belonged to a Christian community that objected, on religious grounds, to children attending public or private schools.
- The parents stated that school attendance conflicted with their convictions because of sex education, increasing violence among pupils, and the use of fairy tales and mythical figures (e.g., witches and dwarfs).
- Their community used a homeschooling program called the “Philadelphia School,” which functioned as a home-education curriculum for parents rather than a State-recognized private school.
- Baden-Württemberg law required children to satisfy compulsory education by attending a public school or an approved private school; the education authorities had limited power to grant exemptions.
- The Konrads asked the local education office to exempt their children from compulsory school attendance and to authorize home education using the Philadelphia School materials, asserting that no available private schools aligned with their religious beliefs.
- The education office denied the request under the Baden-Württemberg School Act. The Konrads pursued domestic administrative remedies, which were rejected, and the Federal Constitutional Court declined to admit their constitutional complaint.
- The family then applied to the European Court of Human Rights, alleging that compulsory attendance and the refusal to allow homeschooling violated their rights under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (including the parental-convictions clause) and Articles 8, 9, and 14 of the Convention.

## Issues

1. Whether Germany’s refusal to exempt the Konrad children from compulsory primary school attendance and allow homeschooling violated Article 2 of Protocol No. 1, including the duty to respect parents’ religious and philosophical convictions.
2. Whether compulsory school attendance, and the denial of a homeschooling exemption sought for religious reasons, violated Articles 8 and 9.
3. Whether the refusal to permit homeschooling amounted to discrimination contrary to Article 14, read with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 and/or Articles 8 and 9.

## Decision

- The Court issued an admissibility decision (not a merits judgment) and declared the application inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded under Article 35.
- Under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1, the Court found no appearance of a violation arising from Germany’s requirement that compulsory education be fulfilled through school attendance rather than home education.
- The Court accepted that the State could regulate education and could require attendance to serve aims going beyond academic instruction, including social integration and contact with pluralistic society, and could seek to avoid the development of “parallel societies.”
- As to Articles 8 and 9, the Court treated the measures as lawful and directed to legitimate aims (including protection of the rights and freedoms of others and public order) and held the interference proportionate within the State’s margin of appreciation.
- The Court rejected the Article 14 complaint, concluding that the general requirement of school attendance and the reasons given for denying an exemption did not disclose unjustified differential treatment.

## Legal Principles

- Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 must be read as a whole: the parental-convictions clause in the second sentence is interpreted in light of the first sentence guaranteeing the right to education.
- The Convention does not confer a general right for parents to replace compulsory school attendance with homeschooling solely on the basis of religious or philosophical objections.
- States have a margin of appreciation in structuring compulsory education and may require school attendance to pursue legitimate educational objectives that include social integration and exposure to differing views.
- Interference with Article 8 and Article 9 rights may be justified where it is prescribed by law, pursues legitimate aims, and is proportionate, taking into account the State’s role in education and the availability of alternative ways for parents to pass on beliefs outside school hours.
- For Article 14, differential treatment violates the Convention only if it lacks objective and reasonable justification; a generally applicable compulsory schooling regime applied on equal terms does not, without more, establish discrimination.

## Conclusion

In *Konrad v. Germany*, the European Court of Human Rights held that Germany could require children to attend public or approved private schools and could refuse a religiously motivated request to satisfy compulsory education through homeschooling, because the measures served legitimate societal and educational objectives and were proportionate within Germany’s margin of appreciation; the application was therefore rejected as manifestly ill-founded.


Konrad v. Germany, 35504/03 Eur. Ct. H.R. (2006)