In 1950, the member states of the Council of Europe, in order to further realize the common and fundamental belief in the protection and preservation of human rights within Europe, signed the European Convention on Human Rights. (ECHR). In order the better achieved the goals set of in the ECHR, the convention established the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and provided it with the judicial power to hear and rule on cases brought before it alleging violations of the ECHR.
The human rights originally protected under the ECHR and enforced by the ECtHR included the broad range of civil and political rights that had been singled out for protection under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Convention of Civil and Political Rights. Accordingly, the ECtHR does not have specific jurisdiction to hear or rule on cases that allege violations of cultural rights (Research Division). Cultural rights loosely refer to the groups of rights that protect a person’s ability to take part in cultural life, enjoy the benefits of art, science, and invention, and to benefit from the protection of the moral and material interest resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production (Research Division).
However, over the years, the ECtHR jurisprudence has slowly evolved to find that certain rights protected in the ECHR can be interpreted to protect “notions of cultural rights in a broad sense (Research Division). To be sure, the ECtHR has interpreted the ECHR’s rights to expression, respect for private life and family; education, and the freedom of thought, conscience, and religion to all include protections of cultural rights (Research Division).
The Belgian Linguistic Case, is probably the first case in which the ECtHR specifically address a cultural right, namely the right to an education. Under the facts of the case, a number of parents of French-speaking children living in the Dutch-speaking region of Belgium challenged Belgium’s linguistic statute, that in essence stated that the language of education would be in the majority language of the region that the school was located in. The plaintiff’s argued that the law violated several rights, including the right to education. More specifically, the plaintiffs argued that the law unreasonably kept their children from attending school in the region where they lived. The Court rendered a split ruling. On the one hand, if found that the Belgian laws did neither violated the plaintiff’s right to family life nor was discriminatory towards the families or their children. However, the Court did find that the law violated the plaintiffs right to an education, on the basis that it was educationally discriminatory. In the sense that while it “prevented certain children from having access to French-languages schools” because of where their parents lived. Dutch-speaking children were not so effected (Belgian Linguistics Case). In making its decision, the Court held that people shall enjoy a right to education, and the in order for the right to education to be effective, the state had to provide a recognition of a student’s studies.
Another influential case dealing with cultural rights is the 2001 case Chapman v. the United Kingdom. In this case, the Chapmans, who were a family of Gypsies, were denied by the British government a license to place a caravan on land that they owned. The Chapmans argued that the ruling against them violated their rights under Article 8 of the ECHR that protected, among other points, their right “to maintain a minority identity” (Chapman). In finding against the Chapmans, the Court found that the ECHR was not because although the British ruling did interfere with the life of the Chapman’s lifestyle, it was reasonable considering the potential disturbance that allowing the Chapmans to do as they pleased would upset the peace and serenity of the community. However, the Court did recognize that states have “positive obligations to facilitate” the special needs of minorities when necessary (Chapman). In addition, the Court also held that the ECHR “does protect the right “to maintain a minority identity and lead on private life in accordance to that tradition” (Research Division).
Works Cited
Belgian Linguistics Case, Series A No. 6. The European Court of Human Rights, Jul. 1968. Web http://www.equalrightstrust.org/ertdocumentbank/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20Belgian%20linguistics%20case.pdf
Chapman v. The United Kingdom. [GC], no. 27238/95. ECHR 2001-I. The European Court of Human Rights, 2001. Web https://www.escr-net.org/sites/default/files/Chapman_v_the_UK_Decision_0.doc
Research Division of the European Court of Human Right. “Cultural Rights in the Case-law of the European Court of Human Rights.” Jan. 2011. Web. http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Research_report_cultural_rights_ENG.pdf
