Date when decision was rendered: 30.12.2003

Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Reference: Report No. 3422; 3655/1/02

Reference to source

Registry of the Supreme Administrative Court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens registratorskontor

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden kirjaamo

Date of publication:

Subject

right to education, cultural rights,
rätt till utbildning, kulturella rättigheter,
oikeus opetukseen, sivistykselliset oikeudet,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 2-1, 23-1 and 90 of the Local Government Act; sections 4, 9, 14, 16, 17, 24-2, 29 and 30 of the Basic Education Act; sections 2-3, 16-1 and 22 of the Constitution Act

= kommunallag 2 § 1 mom., 23 § 1 mom. och 90 §; lag om grundläggande utbildning 4 §, 9 §, 14 §, 16 §, 17 §, 24 § 2 mom., 29 § och 30 §; grundlagen 2 § 3 mom., 16 § 1 mom. och 22 §

= kuntalaki 2 § 1 mom., 23 § 1 mom. ja 90 §; perusopetuslaki 4 §, 9 §, 14 §, 16 §, 17 §, 24 § 2 mom., 29 § ja 30 §; perustuslaki 2 § 3 mom., 16 § 1 mom. ja 22 §.

Abstract

The municipal executive board had decided to lay off for a period of two weeks close to all municipal officials, including teachers in basic education, for economic reasons.The headmaster in each school was authorized to take care of the practical arrangements for the layoff of teachers.The Supreme Administrative Court held that the layoff of basic education teachers was not as such in violation of the Basic Education Act.However, the municipalities had the duty to see to it that those who have the right to education under the Basic Education Act and the Constitution Act may enjoy this right also during the layoff period for teachers.The Court pointed out that before the executive board made its decision on the layoff, it had not considered what would be a suitable time for the layoff and how teaching can be provided during the layoff period so that the pupils' right to education is secured and their right to equal treatment is not violated.The Supreme Administrative Court also found that the municipal executive board had the responsibility for giving more detailed instructions as to the practical arrangement of the layoff.This responsibility could not be delegated to lower officials, such as headmasters.The Supreme Administrative Court concluded that as far as the temporary layoff of basic education teachers was concerned, the decision of the executive board was against the law.

26.5.2006 / 16.1.2018 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 14.3.2006

Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Reference: Report no. 540; 3248/3/04

Reference to source

KHO 2006:10.

Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 2006 January-June

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 2006 januari-juni

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 2006 tammi-kesäkuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: Edita

Date of publication: 2009

Pages: pp. 291-302

Subject

right to education, visiting rights, children, cultural rights,
rätt till utbildning, umgängesrätt, barn, kulturella rättigheter,
oikeus opetukseen, tapaamisoikeus, lapset, sivistykselliset oikeudet,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 4-1, 6-1, 28-1, 32-1 and 32-3 of the Basic Education Act; sections 7-2 and 9-1-2 of the Child Custody and Right of Access Act; section 16-1 of the Constitution Act

= lag om grundläggande utbildning 4 § 1 mom., 6 § 1 mom., 28 § 1 mom., 32 § 1 mom. och 32 § 3 mom.; lag angående vårdnad om barn och umgängesrätt 7 § 2 punkten och 9 § 1 mom. 2 punkten; grundlagen 16 § 1 mom.

= perusopetuslaki 4 § 1 mom., 6 § 1 mom., 28 § 1 mom., 32 § 1 mom. ja 32 § 3 mom.; laki lapsen huollosta ja tapaamisoikeudesta 7 § 2 kohta ja 9 § 1 mom. 2 kohta; perustuslaki 16 § 1 mom.

CRC-3; CRC-28

Abstract

A and B had divorced and had joint custody of their child, C.The parents had agreed that C would live with her mother B.A court of first instance had confirmed this agreement and ruled that C also had the right to stay with her father A for seven days in every three weeks.Both parents lived in the same municipality but in different residential areas.In accordance with the Basic Education Act, the municipality had assigned to C a school she would attend and provided free transportation between the school and C's permanent residence at her mother's.The school was situated at the distance of some 2 kilometres from B's apartment whereas the distance between the school and A's apartment was close to 20 kilometres.A and B claimed that the municipality should arrange C's school transport also when she was staying with her father.

The Supreme Administrative Court referred to the fact that under the Basic Education Act the municipality has an obligation to arrange basic education for children.Education shall be arranged so as to make pupils' travel to and from school as safe and short as possible.The municipality will also provide free transportation to and from school in cases specified in the Act.In order to implement these obligations, the municipality usually assigns to pupils living in a specific residential area a neighbourhood school in that area.In this case, the parents had agreed that the child should live with her mother, and a court had confirmed this arrangement.As C's permanent residence was at her mother's, the municipality had assigned to her a school in the area where she and her mother lived.The Supreme Administrative Court ruled that the municipality had no obligation under the Basic Education Act to arrange free transportation between C's school and her father's apartment while she was staying with him, nor to provide a subsidy for transporting or accompanying C to school from her father's place.The Court concluded that the fact that a child, because of the living arrangements chosen by the child's parents, has no possibility to get free transportation to school from a place where the child regularly stays apart from his or her permanent residence or to get a subsidy for transportation, does not violate the child's right to basic education free of charge as prescribed in section 16-1 of the Constitution Act, nor does it violate the child's right to meet with the parent the child does not live with.

1.6.2006 / 8.9.2009 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 25.1.2007

Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Reference: Report no. 149; 2055/3/06

Reference to source

KHO 2007:5.

Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 2007 January-June

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 2007 januari-juni

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 2007 tammi-kesäkuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: Edita

Date of publication: 2010

Pages: p. 39-44

Subject

right to education, children, cultural rights,
rätt till utbildning, barn, kulturella rättigheter,
oikeus opetukseen, lapset, sivistykselliset oikeudet,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 4-1, 6-1, 6-2 and 32-1 of the Basic Education Act; section 16-1 of the Constitution Act

= lag om grundläggande utbildning 4 § 1 mom., 6 § 1 mom., 6 § 2 mom. och 32 § 1 mom.; grundlagen 16 § 1 mom.

= perusopetuslaki 4 § 1 mom., 6 § 1 mom., 6 § 2 mom. ja 32 § 1 mom.; perustuslaki 16 § 1 mom.

Abstract

According to the Basic Education Act, if the distance to school for a pupil in basic education exceeds five kilometres, the pupil is entitled to free transportation arranged by the municipality.An alternative to free transportation is an adequate subsidy for transporting or accompanying the pupil to school.In this case, the municipality had rejected the family's application for free school transport, on the ground that the family lived in an area which in the local detailed plan was designated for holiday homes.In addition, the building permit defined the house as a holiday home and not fit for permanent residence.The distance to school was six kilometres.The administrative court agreed with the municipality.It found, among other things, that holiday homes are often situated at a long distance from the municipal centre and therefore, transport to school from a holiday home can usually not be arranged as a joint transport for several pupils.Individual transport arrangements would mean higher costs.Considering this, the court held that the municipality had no duty to arrange free transportation between the school and a holiday home.The Supreme Administrative Court quashed the decision of the lower court.It ruled that the right to free basic education, as prescribed in section 16 of the Constitution Act, also covers the necessary transportation to and from school.In the Court's opinion, the right to free basic education is not fulfilled, if the municipality does not arrange transportation between the school and the place which in fact is the pupil's only permanent residence.The Supreme Administrative Court concluded that the municipality had a duty to arrange free school transportation or to provide a subsidy despite the fact that the family used a holiday home as their permanent residence and lived in an area designated for holiday homes.The family had no other residence in the municipality.

2.4.2007 / 2.12.2010 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 29.12.2006

Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Reference: Report no. 3670; 1511/3/05

Reference to source

Registry of the Supreme Administrative Court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens registratorskontor

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden kirjaamo

Date of publication:

Subject

right to education, freedom of religion, cultural rights,
rätt till utbildning, religionsfrihet, kulturella rättigheter,
oikeus opetukseen, uskonnonvapaus, sivistykselliset oikeudet,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 2, 3, 7, 14, 15-1 and 26-1 of the Basic Education Act; sections 11, 16-1 and 123-2 of the Constitution Act

= lag om grundläggande utbildning 2 §, 3 §, 7 §, 14 §, 15 § 1 mom., 26 § 1 mom.; grundlagen 11 §, 16 § 1 mom., 123 § 2 mom.

= perusopetuslaki 2 §, 3 §, 7 §, 14 §, 15 § 1 mom., 26 § 1 mom.; perustuslaki 11 §, 16 § 1 mom., 123 § 2 mom.

ECHRP-1-2; CCPR-18-4; CESCR-13-3

Abstract

The government had authorised a Christian school association to provide education based on Christian convictions, on condition that the association will also draft and adopt a curriculum for education covering the general national objectives of education as defined by the National Board of Education in accordance with the Basic Education Act.In the opinion of the association, the condition contained an obligation to provide basic education which was non-denominational.The association appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court, claiming among other things that the condition was in violation of freedom of religion and conviction.The Supreme Administrative Court noted that, according to the Basic Education Act, basic education shall be governed by a unified national core curriculum as determined by the government and the National Board of Education.Within its competence under the Act, the government may grant an authorisation on condition that the statutory-based national objectives are fulfilled.Such a condition is not in breach of the Basic Education Act, nor is it in violation of freedom of religion and right to education as prescribed in the Constitution Act and in the human rights conventions obligating Finland, considering that, in accordance with the Decree on national objectives of education and distribution of lesson hours, when providing education according to a particular ideology, in addition to the national objectives of education, the pupils are also provided with knowledge and skills based on that ideology.The Supreme Administrative Court also found that the Basic Education Act respects the right of the parents to ensure the religious education of their children in conformity with their own convictions, considering that the parents have a right to decide that their children receive religious education at home or that such education is provided by some other education provider than those defined in the Basic Education Act so that the children do not attend education referred to in the Act.The Court concluded that the government's decision was not in violation of the right of the association to provide basic education according to a particular ideology and was also not in violation of constitutional rights or human rights.The appeal was dismissed.

11.4.2007 / 11.4.2007 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 29.12.2006

Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Reference: Report no. 3671; 1557/3/05

Reference to source

Registry of the Supreme Administrative Court

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens registratorskontor

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden kirjaamo

Date of publication:

Subject

right to education, freedom of religion, cultural rights,
rätt till utbildning, religionsfrihet, kulturella rättigheter,
oikeus opetukseen, uskonnonvapaus, sivistykselliset oikeudet,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 2, 3, 7 and 26 of the Basic Education Act; sections 16-1 and 123-2 of the Constitution Act

= lag om grundläggande utbildning 2 §, 3 §, 7 § och 26 §; grundlagen 16 § 1 mom. och 123 § 2 mom.

= perusopetuslaki 2 §, 3 §, 7 § ja 26 §; perustuslaki 16 § 1 mom. ja 123 § 2 mom.

ECHRP-1-2; CCPR-18-4; CESCR-13-3

Abstract

According to the Basic Education Act, in addition to education provided by local authorities, the government may authorise a registered association or a foundation to provide basic education.Such authorisation also means a state subsidy.In this case, the government had rejected the application for an authorisation to provide education submitted by a Christian school association.As grounds for its decision the government stated, among other things, that the number of students was small and there were no specific regional or national educational and cultural needs supporting the application.Moreover, the plans for arranging the education, as presented in the application, were inadequate and the curriculum was incomplete.The association appealed against the decision to the Supreme Administrative Court, claiming that the decision was contrary to law and criticizing in particular the grounds presented by the government for the needs-based assessment of the application.The Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the appeal.In the Court's opinion, the government's decision was based on grounds which were in accordance with the Basic Education Act.The Court also referred to the right to education, as prescribed in sections 16 and 123 of the Constitution Act, and to the right of parents to ensure the education of their children in conformity with their own convictions and to choose for their children schools, other than those established by public authorities, as prescribed in Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 to the ECHR, Article 18-4 of the CCPR and Article 13-3 of the CESCR.The Court held that the government's decision did not restrict these human rights nor prevent the association from arranging education as private tuition at its own expense.The Court also pointed out that the quoted human rights provisions do not require that education as prescribed in the provisions should be supported by public funds.

11.4.2007 / 11.4.2007 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 31.12.2009

Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Reference: Report no. 3730; 373/1/09

Reference to source

KHO 2009:103.

Yearbook of the Supreme Administrative Court 2009 July-December

Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens årsbok 2009 juli-december

Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden vuosikirja 2009 heinä-joulukuu

Place of publication: Helsinki

Publisher: Edita

Date of publication: 2010

Pages: pp. 784-792

Subject

right to education, children, cultural rights,
rätt till utbildning, barn, kulturella rättigheter,
oikeus opetukseen, lapset, sivistykselliset oikeudet,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 6, 26a and 32 of the Basic Education Act; section 16 of the Constitution Act

= lag om grundläggande utbildning 6 §, 26a § och 32 §; grundlagen 16 §

= perusopetuslaki 6 §, 26a § ja 32 §; perustuslaki 16 §

Abstract

A municipality had arranged the school transportation of a child in pre-primary education by providing the child's parents with a subsidy for accompanying the child to school by public transport.The parents requested that transportation by taxi should be arranged, because both parents worked in shifts and could not transport or accompany the child to school on a regular basis.The Supreme Admininstrative Court noted that pre-primary education is a part of basic education under the Basic Education Act.However, it is voluntary and there is no explicit duty to receive pre-primary education, as is the case with free basic education under section 16 of the Constitution Act.In accordance with the Constitution Act, the Basic Education Act provides for certain benefits to children of compulsory school age, including free school transportation.The Basic Education Act also provides for a right to free transportation for children in pre-primary education, although this is not required by the Constitution Act.Under the Basic Education Act, the education provider has a possibility to choose whether to arrange free transportation or to provide for an adequate subsidy for transporting and accompanying the pupil to school.A pupil has thus no statutory right to a certain form of transportation, such as transportation by taxi.An adequate subsidy is always an alternative to free transportation.The Supreme Administrative Court continued by stating that the parents, as the guardians of their child, have the primary responsibility for the costs of transporting and accompanying their child in pre-primary education to school.The parents' responsibility for the child's care and maintenance is not diminished by the fact that they are shift workers.The guardians of a child in pre-primary education cannot base the child's right to taxi transportation solely on the fact that they are shift workers.In this case, the applicants had not presented any medical reports or other expert reports, showing that reasons pertaining to the child would require transportation by taxi.The Court concluded that the municipality had acted in accordance with the Basic Education Act and the municipal regulations on school transportation subsidy.

10.2.2010 / 21.10.2010 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 4.11.2010

Judicial body: Oulu Administrative Court = Uleåborgs förvaltningsdomstol = Oulun hallinto-oikeus

Reference: Report no. 10/0497/2

Reference to source

Electronic database for administrative court decisions within the FINLEX databank system, administered by the Finnish Ministry of Justice

Databasen för beslut av förvaltningsdomstolar inom FINLEX-databassystemet, vilket administreras av justitieministeriet

Oikeusministeriön ylläpitämän FINLEX-tietopankin hallinto-oikeuksien päätöksiä sisältävä tietokanta

Date of publication:

Subject

right to education, children, cultural rights,
rätt till utbildning, barn, kulturella rättigheter,
oikeus opetukseen, lapset, sivistykselliset oikeudet,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 32 and 34 of the Basic Education Act; section 16 of the Constitution Act

= lag om grundläggande utbildning 32 § och 34 §; grundlagen 16 §

= perusopetuslaki 32 § ja 34 §; perustuslaki 16 §

Abstract

The municipality had not agreed to arrange free school transportation to a pupil who had temporarily needed transportation because of an injury which had occurred in the pupil's free time.The municipality claimed that, while it had a statutory obligation under section 34 of the Basic Education Act to bear the costs for treatment of an injury due to an accident which takes place at school, during school travel and in accommodation, it had no such obligation when the accident has occurred during the pupil's free time.Therefore, there was also no obligation to bear other expenses, such as transportation costs, incurred by such injury.

The administrative court pointed out that the right to free basic education, as prescribed in section 16 of the Constitution Act, also covers the necessary transportation to and from school.Under section 32 of the Basic Education Act, a pupil in basic education is entitled to free transportation or an adequate subsidy for transporting or accompanying the pupil to school, if the distance to school exceeds five kilometres.In the court's view, it is not evident from the Basic Education Act or its preparatory works that the intention of the legislator would have been to exclude from the right to free school transportation pupils whose travel to and from school has temporarily become too difficult, strenuous or dangerous because of an injury due to an accident during free time.The realization of the constitutional right to free basic education may ultimately require also in cases such as this that the municipality arranges school transportation or provides subsidy for transporting or accompanying the pupil to school.Whether a pupil has a right to free school transportation or to a subsidy must be assessed on the basis of section 32 of the Basic Education Act.It cannot be derived from section 34 of the Act that the municipality has no obligation to arrange school transportation in this case.

25.1.2011 / 25.1.2011 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 16.9.2010

Judicial body: Kouvola Administrative Court = Kouvola förvaltningsdomstol = Kouvolan hallinto-oikeus

Reference: Report no. 10/0466/1

Reference to source

Electronic database for administrative court decisions within the FINLEX databank system, administered by the Finnish Ministry of Justice

Databasen för beslut av förvaltningsdomstolar inom FINLEX-databassystemet, vilket administreras av justitieministeriet

Oikeusministeriön ylläpitämän FINLEX-tietopankin hallinto-oikeuksien päätöksiä sisältävä tietokanta

Date of publication:

Subject

non-discrimination, right to education, cultural rights, universities,
icke-diskriminering, rätt till utbildning, kulturella rättigheter, universitet,
syrjintäkielto, oikeus opetukseen, sivistykselliset oikeudet, yliopistot,

Relevant legal provisions

sections 1, 2-2, 13 and 18-3 of the Universities Act; sections 1, 2-3, 4, 6-1, 6-2, 7-2 and 17 of the Non-Discrimination Act; sections 6-2 and 16-2 of the Constitution Act

= universitetslag 1 §, 2 § 2 mom., 13 § och 18 § 3 mom.; lag om lika behandling 1 §, 2 § 3 punkten, 4 §, 6 § 1 och 2 mom., 7 § 2 mom. och 17 §; grundlagen 6 § 2 mom. och 16 § 2 mom.

= yliopistolaki 1 §, 2 § 2 mom., 13 § ja 18 § 3 mom.; yhdenvertaisuuslaki 1 §, 2 § 3 kohta, 4 §, 6 § 1 ja 2 mom., 7 § 2 mom. ja 17 §; perustuslaki 6 § 2 mom. ja 16 § 2 mom.

Abstract

In admitting students to a university the admission criterium had been the average grade of the applicant's degree certificate.One applicant claimed discrimination on the grounds that his/her dyslexia had not been taken into account when assessing his/her eligibility.The administrative court found that dyslexia does not as such raise a presumption of discrimination.It noted that using the degree certificate as an admission criterium places all applicants in an equal position.In the court's view, a person with dyslexia may be entitled to positive measures as compared to other applicants.However, there is no obligation to provide positive measures on grounds of dyslexia.The court concluded that there was no cause to assume that the applicant would have been subjected to discrimination.

26.1.2011 / 26.1.2011 / RHANSKI

Date when decision was rendered: 11.1.2018

Judicial body: Supreme Administrative Court = Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen = Korkein hallinto-oikeus

Reference: Report no. 4004/3/15; 70

Reference to source

KHO 2018:3.

Electronic database for the decisions of the Supreme Administrative Court within the FINLEX databank system, administered by the Finnish Ministry of Justice

Databasen för Högsta förvaltningsdomstolens beslut inom FINLEX-databassystemet, vilket administreras av justitieministeriet

Oikeusministeriön ylläpitämän FINLEX-tietopankin Korkeimman hallinto-oikeuden päätöksiä sisältävä tietokanta

Date of publication:

Subject

disabled persons, right to education, non-discrimination,
handikappade, rätt till utbildning, icke-diskriminering,
vammaiset, oikeus opetukseen, syrjintäkielto,

Relevant legal provisions

section 16(1) of the Constitution Act; section 31(2) of the Basic Education Act; section 8(1) of the Non-Discrimination Act

= grundlagen 16 § 1 mom.; lag om grundläggande utbildning 31 § 2 mom.; diskriminteringslag 8 § 1 mom.

= perustuslaki 16 § 1 mom.; perusopetuslaki 31 § 2 mom.; yhdenvertaisuuslaki 8 § 1 mom.

CRPD-5; CRPD-7; CRPD-24

Abstract

A's daughter B, who was disabled, had started preschool in the autumn of 2015.Because of her disability, she was unable to take food by mouth.Instead, she had a PEG-button inserted in her belly through which nutrition and water could be delivered directly to the stomach.At school, B had her own personal assistant, who helped her with administering the nutrition.According to the Basic Education Act, which also provides for pre-primary education, a pupil attending basic education has a right to receive a balanced meal on every school day, free of charge.At first, B's parents had purchased the liquid nutrition from the pharmacy and had delivered it to the school.After a few months the mother A requested that the school buys the liquid directly from a wholesale distributor.The head of the local education department in the municipality denied A's request, saying that the liquid food was a pharmaceutical product, not a meal, and that the municipality had no duty to provide pupils with liquid or other nutrition that is not taken by mouth.The administrative court rejected A's appeal.A appealed further to the Supreme Administrative Court.

The Supreme Administrative Court noted that the provision in the Basic Education Act concerning free school meals implements the right to basic education free of charge as prescribed in the Constitution Act.Free basic education also means adequate food.As a main rule, the education provider has a duty to provide a pupil with a special diet when required for medical reasons or because of a disability.Because of her disability, B's nutrition consisted of the liquid delivered by means of a PEG-button.The liquid was thus not a pharmaceutical product but nutrition, comparable to a special diet followed for medical reasons.Whether the liquid was taken by mouth of by means of a PEG-button had no effect on the education provider's obligation to provide a meal free of charge for all pupils attending basic education.The fact that the pupil or the parents receive various forms of disability-related benefits or support also had no effect on that obligation.The Supreme Administrative Court concluded that the decision not to provide B with a free meal on every school day was illegal.The matter was referred back to the head of the local education department in the municipality for a new consideration.

Because the matter was concerning the application of the Non-Discrimination Act, the Non-Discrimination Ombudsman was heard.In her statement she referred to Articles 5 (equality and non-discrimination), 7 (children with disabilities) and 24 (education) of the CRPD.In her appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court, A also referred to the CRPD and the prohibition of indirect discrimination.In its decision, the court made no specific reference to the CRPD.

1.2.2018 / 1.2.2018 / RHANSKI