Spain, Asturias High Court, 18 April 2022, Judgement 356/2022
Case overview
Country
Case ID
Decision date
ECLI
Deciding body (English)
Deciding body (Original)
Type of body
Type of Court (material scope)
Type of jurisdiction
Type of Court (territorial scope)
Instance
Area
Vulnerability groups
Outcome of the decision
Link to the full text of the decision
General Summary
The mother of a child filed a claim with the High School Director demanding telematic education, considering that in-person education infringed upon her son’s rights to life, bodily integrity, (Art. 15 SC) and education (Art. 27 SC). The Court determined that the denial of telematic education was a proportionate decision given the circumstances of the case.
Facts of the case
The mother of a minor (13 years old) filed a claim with the High School Director demanding telematic education for her child during the 2021/2022 academic year. Her son, she explained, had several pathologies which increased his risk of suffering seriously from Covid-19. The Director rejected the claim on the grounds that there was no special health risk at stake for the minor. The mother appealed this negative decision before the regional High Court as she considered her son’s right to life, bodily integrity, and education to have been violated.
Type of measure challenged
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
Individual / collective enforcement
Nature of the parties
Claimant(s)
Private individualDefendant(s)
Private individual
Type of procedure
Reasoning of the deciding body
The Court did not annul the decision of the High School Director to deny telematic education for the child. The Court followed previous reasoning on this matter and the opinion expressed by doctors. In this sense, it explained that the pathologies from which the child suffered (linked to asthma) were not high but low-risk pathologies, very similar to others suffered by people working at the High School. It also highlighted the protection granted by vaccines which were still present even if the child could not use a mask. Additionally, there were additional protection measures such as social distancing, the ventilation of rooms, etc. The Court also highlighted some extracts from previous rulings in similar cases regarding the safety of schools in relation to Covid-19 and its low incidence rate in the region at that moment. Concerning the right to education, the Court underlined that the minor was not deprived of an education, merely one of its forms. It also remarked that telematic education lacked many of the benefits that on-site education entailed in terms of emotional wellbeing and socialization. The former had a deep psychological impact on children and was thus harmful for them.
Conclusions of the deciding body
The Court determined that neither the fundamental rights to life and bodily integrity nor the right to education were violated in this case. Denying telematic education was a proportionate measure regarding the circumstances of the case.
Fundamental Right(s) involved
- Right to bodily integrity
- Right to education
Fundamental Right(s) instruments (constitutional provisions, international conventions and treaties)
- Right to life and bodily integrity, Art. 15, Spanish Constitution
- Right to education, Art. 27, Spanish Constitution
Rights and freedoms specifically identified as (possibly) conflicting with the right to health
General principle applied
- Proportionality
- Precautionary
Balancing techniques and principles (proportionality, reasonableness, others)
The Court mentioned the proportionality principle, arguing that the denial of telematic education was proportional in terms of its adequacy, necessity and was strictly proportional.
Other notes
On the type of measure challenged: the decision was adopted by the Institute’s director but was later validated by the Education Department of the council.
