| X. et Y. c. ROYAUME-UNI

paragraph 3 are attached . (See Eur . Court HR Judgment of 13 May 1980 in the Artico case . Series A, No . 37, para . 32) . 7 . This approach has a bearing on the Commision's competence ratione temporaris . According to its case-law, where a court delivers a judgment after the entry into force of the Convention in respect of the State in question (in this case, the judgment in the court of first instance was delivered on 23 November 1979), the Commission is competent ratione temporaris to ensure that the proceedings which this judgment concluded complied with the Convention, because proceedings conducted before a court are concluded by the final decision which embodies any defects by which they may be affected (cf . in this respect application No . 6916/75, DR 6, pp . 107, 108, and No . 8261/78, DR 18, pp . 150, 152) . A problem could also arise under Article 6(1) of the Convention if, before this final decision, an interference with the rights of the defence had decisively affected the outcome of the case . 8 . In this case, the Commission finds that the applicant has not shown that the restrictions imposed on his contacts with his lawyer had such effects . He has not contplained of the fact that his lawyer was prevented from defending him during the investigation, but only that he was not able to talk alone with him . Admittedly, the conduct of the police is surprising if account is taken of the fact that under the very provisions of Portuguese law, the police were required to comply with the decisions of the investigating judge (Article 32 (4) of the Constitution and Article 159 of the Code of Criniinal Procedure) . However, in the circumstances of the case, the Commission cannot reach the conclusion that the restrictions imposed on the applicant by the police in his contacts with his defence lawyer interfered with his right to a fair trial in accordance with Article 6(1) of the Convention . With regard to this provision, the applicant's complaint is therefore manifestly ill-founded within the meaning of Article 27 (2) of the Convention .
-209-
APPLICATION/REQUETE N° 9461 /8 1 X . and Y . v/the UNITED KINGDO M X . et Y . c/ROYAUME-UN I DECISION of 7 December 1982 on the admissibility of the application DÉCISION du 7 décembre 1982 sur la recevabilité de la requêt e
Arllcle 2 of the Flnt Probcol : This provision forbids the State to prevent, by the measures it takes in the field of education, the exercise of the rights guaranteed, but does not oblige it to create or subsidise schools which are in conformity with particular religious or philasophical convictions .
Artlcle 2 du Protocole addltlonnel : Cette disposition interdit à l'Etat d'entraver, par les mesures qu'il prend dans le domaine de l'éducation, l'exercice des droits qu'elle garantit mais elle ne lâstreint pas à créer ou subventionner des établissements conformes à des conviction.s religieuses ou philosophiques déterminées .
Summery of the facts
(français : voir p . 211 )
The couple X. and Y. send their three children to the Rudolf Steiner school in Edinburgh because thev adhere to most of the ideas of the anthroposophical rnovement and consider that the education provided in state schools does not correspond to these views . They complain that the State does not subsidise this school and does not provide any grant to parents who send their children to this school at their own expense .
-7.10-
THE LA W The applicants complain of the refusal of the United Kingdom authorities to provide financial support for the education of their children at a Rudolf Steiner school . They invoke Article 2 of Protocol No . I to the Convention, which is in the following terms : "No person shall be denied the right to education . In the exercise of any functions which it assumes in relation to education and to teaching, the State shall respect the right of parents to ensure such education and teaching in conformity with their own religious and philosophical convictions ." The question which arises is whether this provision imposes any obligatio n on the State to provide financial assistance to the applicants for the education of their children at the Rudolf Steiner school, or to subsidise the school . The Commission considers that under Article 2 of the Protocol, whilst the State must not by action in the educational system prevent parents from exercising the right expressed . It is sufficient, as it has already stated, that the State "evidence respect for the religious and philosophical beliefs of parents within the existing and developing system of education" (Application No . 7782/77, X . v . the United Kingdom, DR 14, p . 1 79) . However there is no obligation on the State to set up or support any education establishment serving particular religious or philosophical beliefs or convictions . The Commission further observes that the United Kingdom authorities have shown "respect" for Rudolf Steiner school by granting it charitable status and making it eligible for "assisted places" . In the circumstances the Commission finds no appeance of any breach of the applicants' rights under Article 2 of Protocol No . I to the Convention . The application is therefore manifestly ill-founded and inadmissible under Article 27 (2) of the Convention . For these reasons, the Commission DECLARES THIS APPLICATION INADMISSIBLE .
Réeumé dn Glts Le couple X. et Y. envoie ses trois enfants à l'école Rudolf Steiner d'Edinbourg car ils n'estiment pas que l'enseignement dispensé dans les écoles publiques conesponde à leurs vues mais ils approuvent la plupart des thèses de l'anthroposophie. lls se plaignent que lEtar ne subventionne pas cette école et n'accorde aucune allocation aux parents qui y envoient leurs enfants à leurs frais .
- 211 -
(TRADUCTION) EN DROI T Les requérants se plaigent du refus des autorités du Royaume-Uni de leur accorder un soutien financier leur permettant d'assurer l'éducation de leurs enfants dans une école Rudolf Steiner . Ils invoquent l'article 2 du Protocole additionnel à la Convention, qui est ainsi libellé :
"Nul ne peut se voir refuser le droit à l'instruction . L'Etat, dans l'exercice des fonctions qu'il assumera dans le domaine de l'éducation et de l'enseignement, respectera le droit des parents d'assurer cette éducation et cet enseignement conformément à leurs convictions religieuses et philosophiques . " La question qui se pose est celle de savoir si cette disposition impose à l'état l'obligation de fournir une assistance financière aux requérants pour assurer l'éducation de leurs enfants dans une école Rudolf Steiner, ou de subventionner ledit établissement . La Commission estime qu'aux termes de l'article 2 du Protocole, l'Etat ne doit pas, par les mesures qu'il prend dans le secteur de l'enseignement, empêcher les parents d'exercer le droit consacré par cette disposition . Il suffit pour cela, elle l'a déjà indiqué, que l'Etat "montre qu'il respecte les convictions religieuses et philosophiques des parents dans l'enseignement tel qu'il existe et qu'il se développe" (Requête N° 7782/77, X . c/Royaume-Uni, DR 14, p . 179) . Cependant, l'Etat n'est pas tenu de créer ou de subventionner un établissentent d'enseignement conforme à des convictions religieuses ou philosophiques déterminées . La Commission remarque d'ailleurs que les autorités du Royaume-Uni ont ntanifesté un "respect" pour l'école Rudolf Steiner en lui accordant le statut d'organisme de bienfaisance et en autorisant l'inscription d'élèves "assistés" . Dans ces conditions, la Commission ne constate aucune apparence de violation des droits garantis au requérant par l'article 2 du Protocole additionnel . La requête est donc manifestement mal fondée et irrecevable aux terntes de l'article 27, par . 2 de la Convention . Par ces motif, la Commissio n DECLARE LA REQUÉTEIRRECEVABLE .
- 212 -