Документ - http://cmiskp.echr.coe.int/tkp197/view.asp?item=1&action=html&sessionid=9016494&skin=hudoc-en
Самое главное в документе - собственная аргументация судей разных уровней. Вот отрывки:
The applicant parents could not be permitted to keep their children away from school and the influences of other children. Schools represented society, and it was in the children’s interest to become part of that society. The parents’ right to education did not go as far as to deprive their children of that experience.
The Federal Constitutional Court found that the interferences with the applicants’ fundamental rights were also proportionate given the general interest of society to avoid the emergence of parallel societies based on separate philosophical convictions. Moreover, society also had an interest in the integration of minorities. Such integration required not only that minorities with separate religious or philosophical views should not be excluded, but also that they should not exclude themselves.
The Court observes that the applicant parents’ complaints mainly relate to the second sentence of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1. This provision recognises the role of the State in education as well as the right of parents, who are entitled to respect for their religious and philosophical convictions in the delivery of education and teaching of their children. It aims safeguarding pluralism in education which is essential for the preservation of the “democratic society” as conceived by the Convention (B.N. and S.N. v. Sweden, no. 17678/91, Commission decision of 30 June 1993). In view of the power of the modern State, it is above all through State teaching that this aim must be realised (Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v. Denmark, judgment of 7 December 1976, Series A no. 23, pp. 24-25, § 50).
The Court observes in this respect that there appears to be no consensus among the Contracting States with regard to compulsory attendance of primary schools. While some countries permit home education, other States provide for compulsory attendance of its State or private schools.
In the present case, the Court notes that the German authorities and courts have carefully reasoned their decisions and mainly stressed the fact that not only the acquisition of knowledge, but also the integration into and first experience with society are important goals in primary school education. The German courts found that those objectives cannot be equally met by home education even if it allowed children to acquire the same standard of knowledge as provided for by primary school education.