Skip to main content
Social Media
  • twitter
  • linkedin
Home
  • About the project
    • About the project
    • Partnerships and Collaborators
    • Coordination Unit
    • Project Management Team
    • International Network of Judges and Legal Scholars
    • Research assistants
  • Case Law Database
    • Case index
    • Database charts
  • News
    • News and announcements
    • Press newsroom
  • Resources
    • Working papers and other resources
    • Media kit
  • Contacts
Back to the previous page

Spain, Asturias High Court, 18 April 2022, Judgement 356/2022

Case overview

Share
  • linkedin
  • twitter
  • facebook
  • envelope
  • print
Country
Spain
Case ID
Judgement 356/2022
Decision date
18 April 2022
ECLI
ECLI:ES:TSJAS:2022:1171
Deciding body (English)
Asturias High Court
Deciding body (Original)
Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Asturias
Type of body
Court
Type of Court (material scope)
Administrative Court
Type of jurisdiction
Single jurisdiction system
Type of Court (territorial scope)
Local Court
Instance
1st Instance
Area
Education
Vulnerability groups
Children
Outcome of the decision
Claim inadmissible or rejected
Link to the full text of the decision
Decision_ES available on poderjudicial.es

Case analisys

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
City government measure
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
Annulment of an administrative decision
Individual / collective enforcement
Individual action brought by one or more individuals or legal persons exclusively in their own interest.
Nature of the parties
  • Claimant(s)
    Private individual
  • Defendant(s)
    Private individual
Type of procedure
Special / extraordinary procedures
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.

Balancing Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

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
Health v. right to education
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.

Additional notes

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.

Author of the case note
Professor Patricia Garcia Majado, Assistant Professor of Constitutional Law, Oviedo University
Published by Marco Nicolò on 25 October 2022

More cases from Spain

  • Spain, Constitutional Court, 2 June 2022, Judgment 70/2022
    Area: Scope of powers of public authorities (legislative, executive etc.)
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to an effective remedy
    Outcome: Claim upheld
  • Spain, Galicia High Court of Justice, 23 May 2022, Judgement 198/2022
    Area: Privacy and data protection
    Fundamentals rights involved: Freedom of information; Right to data protection; Right to privacy
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Spain, Lugo Administrative Court (No. 1), 11 February 2022, Judgement 24/2022
    Area: Industrial relations / Labor law
    Outcome: Claim upheld
  • Spain, Supreme Court, 19 May 2022, Judgment 462/2022
    Area: Industrial relations / Labor law
    Fundamentals rights involved: Freedom to conduct a business; Other (Right to work)
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Spain, Supreme Court, 22 February 2022, Judgement 168/2022
    Area: Industrial relations / Labor law
    Fundamentals rights involved: Freedom to conduct a business; Other (Right to work)
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Spain, Jerez de la Frontera Labor Court (No. 3), 13 May 2022, Judgement 232/2022
    Area: Industrial relations / Labor law
    Fundamentals rights involved: Right to bodily integrity; Right to health (inc. right to vaccination, right to access to reproductive health)
    Outcome: Claim upheld
  • Load 6 more
List all available cases from Spain

Breadcrumb

  1. Home
  2. Case Index
  3. Spain, Asturias High Court, 18 April 2022, Judgement 356/2022
home

This project and its database have been made possible with the financial support from the World Health Organization

www.covid19litigation.org is run and maintained by the University of Trento
Via Calepina 14, I-38122 Trento (Italy) — P. Iva/C.F. IT-00340520220

Social Media Links

  • twitter
  • linkedin

Terms of use

www.covid19litigation.org
Site purpose

This site is for informational use only. Case law summaries are not legal advices and may not be relied on as such. Anyone seeking for legal advice should obtain appropriate legal counsel.

Site operation

This site may not be fully up-to-date (for example, cases may be reviewed, reversed, or appealed). This site may be taken down at any time without notice. The case law summaries provided on this site may be incomplete or outdated.

Copyright

Any files provided on this site were taken from a source that is, to the University of Trento and its Partners' best knowledge, from a freely available public resource, however, any further use of such files is at the user’s responsibility.

Responsibility

This site is maintained by the University of Trento, with financial support from the World Health Organization (WHO). The University of Trento will not be responsible for any use of the site.

No endorsement

Inclusion of a case on the website does not necessarily involve a view, position, or endorsement by the University of Trento or the WHO, including with respect to any legal matter. The site is not a product of WHO and does not necessarily reflect the views or positions of the WHO.

User account menu

  • Log in

Footer menu

  • Contacts
  • Terms of use
  • Privacy
  • Cookies