RIGHTS DIRECTLY RELATED TO EDUCATION

A parent turned to our Office with the following complaint. Her child applied for admission to a vocational secondary school specialising in technology, and was granted admission. The principal informed the parents of the admission in writing. Following that, the parents requested a face to face meeting with the school staff. At their meeting with the deputy principal, they disclosed that their child was HIV positive. When the principal learned about this, he contacted the parents and told them that the school was unable to admit the student in the given situation. The explanation he gave to this decision was that the child's disease represented a serious hazard to the other students and the staff of the school. The principal said that parents upon learning of the admission of an HIV positive student, other parents were going to take their children to another school, which could even result in the closing of the school. . Then the parent contacted the maintainer of the school, and asked the head of the school to provide a written notification of his decision. The principal sent a notification to the family, and at the same time contacted our Office to ask for help in considering the problem from a legal perspective. The principal informed the parents that the child could not enrol until our position was received. In view of the highly sensitive nature of the problem and the urgency of the matter, we deemed it necessary to organise a face to face meeting, where the parent's complaint was confirmed. In addition to the parent and the principal, the student's doctor also participated in this meeting. As the head of a hospital department, the physician was an expert in this field. According to the doctor, there were no medical obstacles to the child's learning in a school community. There was no real danger of transmitting the infection, because the virus count in the patient's blood was so low that it was practically impossible to transmit the disease. Neither the legal nor the medical arguments could convince the head of the institution. He insisted that the child may not enrol. Furthermore, the head of the institution declared that he would admit the child only if a court decision required him to do so.

The Constitution provides for the enforcement of all fundamental rights, including the right to education, in a non-discriminatory manner. This is confirmed by the provisions of the Public Education Act on the prohibition of discrimination in public education. The parent's right to a free choice of school is an essential component of the right to education and the freedom of education. Secondary schools may select their students within the limitations imposed by the law, using an admission procedure, but they may only consider academic requirements in such selection. . In addition to the academic requirements, institutions providing vocational education and training may use aptitude tests to establish the applicants' medical fitness or fitness for a career or trade. By issuing in writing the decision on admission, the principal granting admission creates a right to the student to enter into a legal relationship with the school, namely to enrol the school. In this case, the principal decided in the admission procedure that the student would be admitted to the school, his decision was issued in writing, and it took effect within 15 days. Following this, it depends on the decision of the pupil or the parent whether the pupil who has been granted admission would enrol, and the principal may not impede it. In this case, the principal did not allow the pupil to enrol on account of the pupil being HIV positive, which infringed upon the parent's and the pupil's right to a free choice of school, and treated the pupil in a discriminatory manner with respect to this right.

After the study of regulations, it had to be judged whether the fact that the pupil is HIV positive could be a risk factor in the school, and whether it could represent a hazard to the pupils and staff of the institution, thus justifying the decision of the principal. None of the regulations concerning the general issues related to HIV / AIDS contain any provisions of restrictive nature concerning HIV positive pupils or the educational institutions that may be attended by them. On the contrary, Decree 18/1998 (VI.3.) NM of the Minister of Welfare on the necessary epidemiological measures for the prevention of infectious diseases and epidemics emphasises that persons who are HIV positive do not need to be segregated, because daily contact with a person infected by HIV does not represent a hazard in terms of acquiring (transmitting) the infection. Therefore, discrimination on account of being HIV positive is not appropriate in educational institutions, including the given vocational secondary school. The fact that the pupil is HIV positive does not mean that he would be medically unfit for the training in technology which he had selected. Therefore, the pupil should not have been excluded from the school.

The international recommendations and practice relating to this issue also support this view. In its Decision 2001/51, the Human Rights Committee of the UN states that 'the human rights principles in force prohibit all actual or assumed discrimination based on HIV/AIDS status', and emphasises that the expression 'or other status', used in the anti-discrimination provisions of international human rights documents, must be construed to apply to a wide range of circumstances, including HIV status. Both the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the UN organisation specialised in HIV/AIDS have emphasised that children and young people who are HIV positive have a right to education without discrimination, irrespective of their status, and all practices that are in conflict with this represent a serious violation of the human rights of the affected. This means that children may not even be prohibited to attend a kindergarten on account of being HIV positive, although the occurrence of minor accidents is more likely in this institution than in a secondary school, even if it is a vocational secondary school offering practical training in technology. The internationally recommended attitude is the following: on the one hand, the fundamental hygienic rules and rules of conduct must be observed. These can fully prevent the transmission of the infection, as HIV cannot be transmitted through ordinary physical contact or by staying in the same room. On the other hand, if the HIV status is known in the pupil's environment, the affected persons must be given true and thorough information on the disease, its mode of transmission and the rules of prevention.

In the context of the above, although the infringement of educational rights could be established in the case, we did not issue an initiative for the head of the institution, because we did not believe that it was possible to rectify the violation of rights under the given circumstances. Nevertheless we sent our report on the case to the maintainer of the school to take measures deemed necessary and, as an employer, consider if it would be appropriate to launch a disciplinary proceeding against the head of the institution. The maintainer considered the matter and decided not to launch a disciplinary proceeding against the principal. We also sent a copy of our report to the National Medical Officer and the medical officers of Budapest and the county, asking them to take action within their respective spheres of authority to ensure the thorough information of all affected parties on the issues of HIV/AIDS, with special emphasis on the transmission of the disease and the key rules of its prevention. In our view, infringements of this kind, caused by the otherwise understandable concerns, can only be avoided through the dissemination of credible and true information. The case was discussed by the National Public Education Policy Council as well, with the involvement of the Commissioner for Educational Rights. (K-OJOG-449/2003.)

The deputy mayor of the county town Debrecen contacted us to issue a position concerning the schooling of a child infected with Hepatitis C. The case received press coverage several times, and the principal of the primary school concerned also informed our Office of the case. A parent requested the admission of a child of school age - who was infected with the Hepatitis C virus - to the primary school Epreskerti Általános Iskola in Debrecen. This was the school required to grant admission to the children from the district concerned. The principal did not refuse to grant admission to the pupil, and entered into a legal relationship with the pupil, whereby - in the absence of a request from the parents to be otherwise - the pupil was to receive compulsory education by attending school. The principal informed us that the school did not disclose or publish the personal data of the pupil and parent in question. The parents of the other pupils attending the school associated the events with the pupil later, on the basis of earlier press reports. Following that, many parents objected to the admission of the infected pupil. The head of the institution rejected the parents' objections, and provided information on the infection to the parents on several occasions, with the help of the State Public Health and Medical Officer Service (ÁNTSZ). The ÁNTSZ issued a position on the matter to the parents of the pupil concerned and to the deputy mayor of the county town Debrecen.

Pursuant to Paragraph (2) of Article 66 of the Public Education Act, primary schools must grant admission to and must take over pupils whose permanent or temporary residence is in the district of the school (school granting compulsory admission). Therefore, the principal of the primary school in question acted in compliance with the provisions of the Public Education Act by granting admission to a pupil of school age living in the district of the school. As the principal mentioned in his declaration, the school was required by the law to grant admission to the pupil in question, and could not deny admission on account of the pupil being infected. Pursuant to Paragraph(1) of Article 7 of the Public Education Act, the parent may chose whether the child should fulfil the obligation of compulsory education by school attendance or as a private learner. If the parent does not want the child to be a private learner, other parties, including the school, may not impose that choice upon the parent, and may not put the parent under pressure to make that choice. The principal in question mentioned all this in his declaration: as the parents did not request a private learner's status for their child, the child became a full-time pupil of the school.

Another issue which had to be considered was whether infection with a Hepatitis C virus was a risk to health in the school, or whether it represented a hazard to the pupils and the staff of the institution. The epidemiological measures relating to Hepatitis C infection are governed by the provisions of the above mentioned Decree 18/1998 (VI.3.) NM of the Minister of Welfare. The Chief Medical Officer for Hajdú-Bihar County informed us that persons with the disease and persons carrying the virus do not need to change their way of life. In case of bleeding, the customary hygienic rules must be observed, such as the removal of blood stains, use of rubber gloves, washing hands. Information must be provided on the risks of sharing razors, toothbrushes and the possibility of sexual transmission. The expert deemed it necessary to emphasise that blood should in all cases be regarded as infectious, irrespective of whose blood it may be. The position of the Chief Medical Officer is that in an educational institution, there are no medical reasons for the segregation of pupils infected with Hepatitis, but the provision of medical information and teaching the fundamentals of first aid are essential. In accordance with the above, the Chief Medical Officer of the county provided appropriate information to the parents of the pupil in question and the deputy mayor of the county town Debrecen, stating that there were no public health and epidemiological reasons for excluding the pupil from the school community, excluding any legal basis for the denial of admission. Considering that the Hepatitis C virus may be transmitted through massive contact with the blood of the person carrying the virus, treatment of potential bleeding wounds of a person who was tested positive involve the same general hygienic requirements as the ones applying to any other case. If known, the fact that a pupil is infected with the virus does not represent a higher risk to the other pupils and the teachers than any other virus carrier who has not been tested and is not known. In accordance with the regulations and the position of the ÁNTSZ, the disease does not represent a health hazard, and therefore it was not necessary to propose amendments to the current legislation.

Having considered the general issues relating to the admission and school attendance of the pupil infected with the Hepatitis C virus, our answers to the further questions of the deputy mayor were the following.

The deputy mayor requested our position on whether parents may be required to disclose the infection on admitting their child into a school community. This is an issue relating to the protection of personal data. The Commissioner for Data Protection published a communication on this issue on 2 October 2003, which contained a position on the treatment of medical data, including the treatment of data related to infection with the Hepatitis C virus.

The deputy mayor also requested us to issue a position on how the affected parties (parents, maintainer, and school community) can co-operate in the given situation. In our view, the affected parties should explore the possible forms of co-operation locally. The wide ranging dissemination of key information on the disease among the affected parties should be an essential part and a precondition of such co-operation. However, the infected pupil's privacy rights and right to the protection of personal data should be respected throughout these information activities.

In response to the questions of the deputy mayor concerning the responsibilities and obligations of the head of the institution, we presented our above described view on pupils' right to a safe and healthy environment and the related obligations of educational institutions and teachers. In the given situation, the school or the head of the institution must ensure the wide ranging dissemination of information among the affected parties - with the involvement of medical workers, if needed - on the fundamental hygienic and behavioural rules to prevent the transmission of the disease, and the teachers looking after the pupils must ensure that the pupils put in their charge observe these rules. These define the limits of the responsibilities of the head of the institution in this respect.

From the information provided by the principal and the maintainer of the institution we established that the school had acted lawfully and in accordance with the above. We were not informed of any circumstances that would imply a suspected infringement of educational rights. We deem it necessary to add that, in our view, the head and maintainer of the institution not only acted lawfully in this highly sensitive case, but also took into account the concerns and reservations of the affected parties with utmost care, which led to the integration of the diseased child into the school community. As a sign of appreciation, the Commissioner for Educational Rights awarded a special prize to the principal, the teachers and the pupils of Epreskerti Általános Iskola. (K-OJOG-735/2003.)

A parent contacted us because the school where she wanted to enrol her younger child rejected the application for admission, because all classes were full. The parent complained that this way her two children could not attend the same school. The petitioner was informed of the following: pursuant to Paragraph (2) of Article 66 of the Public Education Act, primary schools must grant admission to and take over pupils whose permanent or temporary residence is in the district of the school (school granting compulsory admission). Primary schools granting compulsory admission must admit all applicants from this area, even when it leads to class sizes exceeding the limit specified by the law. In such case, the local authority must arrange the organisation of additional classes. However, if the school chosen by the parent for the child is other than the school granting compulsory admission, and the institution is full, the rejection of the application is not unlawful. The fact that the children of the same parent cannot attend the same school as a result of such decision is not in conflict with the law either. Under the law, only those schools are required to grant admission which grant compulsory admission at the place of the permanent or temporary residence. (K-OJOG-578/2003.)

The members of a parents' association contacted us because the head of the school impeded their activities on a regular basis, claiming that the association was not a lawfully working advocacy organisation of parents. The aims of this parents' association included the protection of pupils' interest and mediation in school conflicts. The school argued that it followed from the Public Education Act that parents could form associations only to exercise parents' rights; therefore, neither the protection of pupils' rights, nor mediation in school conflicts could be part of the remit of a parents' association. With that, the parents' organisation would take over some of the competencies of the pupils' self-government, the notary, the school board and the employer.

We informed the petitioners that the Public Education Act listed a number of individual and collective rights granted to parents. Pursuant to Paragraph (6) of Article 59, additional rights may be granted to the parents' association (working group) by the law or the rules of organisation and operation of the kindergarten, school or dormitory. Consequently, the position of the head of the institution, who claimed that parents associations could be set up for exercising the rights listed in the Public Education Act only, is incorrect. In a school, parents may form associations (working groups) to enforce their rights and to meet their obligations. Parents must form such associations on their own initiative, autonomously - the law does not contain any restrictions in this respect. Furthermore, under the Public Education Act, associations formed this way shall take autonomous decisions on their rules of procedure, the adoption of their work plan and the appointment of their functionaries. It also follows from the above that when the aims of the parents' association coincide with the aims defined in the law or the rules of organisation and operation of the school, its activities may not be construed as taking over some of the competencies of the pupils' self-government, the notary, the school board or the employer. Consequently, our position is that this parents' association was formed lawfully, and that the head of the school could not ignore its formation and impede its work on the basis of the arguments indicated above. However, considering that the parents' organisation becomes part of the institution after its formation and that the rules of organisation and operation of the school must define how the organisation will keep contact with the school management, it is inevitable for the parents' association and the school to co-operate in a number of fields. Naturally, this creates obligations for both the parents' association and the school management. As there are several parents' associations working in this school, the one represented by the petitioners may act on behalf of all parents only if its members have been elected by over 50% of the parents of the pupils admitted to the school. If the number of parents electing the members is less, the petitioners may act on behalf of all parents only if the parents' associations working in the school so authorise the parents' association represented by them. (K-OJOG-769/2003.)

The members of a parents' association contacted us with the following complaint. Their children participated in an alternative pedagogical programme led by a teacher of the school, whom the children liked very much and the parents were very satisfied with. The parents trusted that the teacher would teach their children until the end of the fourth grade, where the programme was to end. They believed that due to the special nature of the programme, the teacher had a key role in it, and this teacher was a guarantee that their children would receive education which best catered to their needs. However, at the end of the school year, they were informed that the principal did not wish to renew the teacher's contract, and she would be unable to complete the programme with the children. The petitioners complained that the school had failed to inform them in time, so the pupils had no opportunity to prepare for the change, and the parents could not consider if they wanted to continue their children's education in the school. In his declaration, the principal informed our Office that the teacher's contract had expired on 30 June 2003, and that he as an employer had the right not to renew it. The principal explained that the school did not normally inform parents of changes in the distribution of subjects among the teachers, but the parents concerned were informed of his decision upon their request. The principal was of the opinion that the new teacher quickly gained acceptance among the pupils and the parents and the school activities were carried out in a good atmosphere. Because the head of the school, as an employer, has the right to make decisions on the employment of teachers, in our view, the principal did not infringe upon any educational right by not renewing the teacher's contract. The next issue to be considered was the parents' complaint that the new teacher did not meet the requirements of the alternative pedagogical programme. When employing the new teacher, the head of the school had the duty to check if the qualifications of the teacher to be employed complied with the requirements of the regulations. Pursuant to Section a) of Paragraph (2) of Article 16 of the Public Education Act, the existence of the required level of education and professional qualification is a prerequisite of employment in public education. The head of the school provided us with copies of the degrees which proved that the teacher in questions held the required qualifications and had the experience required for participation in the alternative pedagogical programme. The documents made available to our Office proved that the new teacher was employed in compliance with the requirements of the law. Consequently, the infringement of educational rights was not established in this case. (K-OJOG-562/2003.)

The child of a parent completed five grades of schooling at a primary school in Hungary and then continued his education in Canada. Upon his return to Hungary, he wished to continue his education in the 8th grade of a primary school, where he applied for and was granted admission. In October, however, the school recommended to the parents that the pupil should be moved back to the 6th grade, as a private learner receiving weekly tuition. The parent complained that it had happened in the course of the school year, without assessing the child's knowledge. She also complained that this way the child was going to be segregated from his age group, which would have a serious emotional impact on the boy. In her declaration, the head of the institution confirmed that the school intended to move the pupil, who had been admitted to the 8th grade, to the 6th grade during the school year, as the parent said. She also informed our Office that the parents had only applied for a temporary placement in their application for admission. Pursuant to Paragraph (1) of Article 111 of the Public Education Act, pupils may continue their education commenced but not completed abroad in the formal system of public education in Hungary. Admission of the pupil and the recognition of previous learning are subject to the decision of the principal. There is no such concept as 'temporary placement' under the Public Education Act . On the day that the pupil enrolled at the school, the pupil and the school entered into a legal relationship at the level of the 8th grade of schooling, as the pupil was admitted to the 8th grade of schooling by the principal at the beginning of the school year, irrespective of the reasons. Such decisions may not be altered during the school year. The boy may not attend school at the level of the 6th grade of schooling, because pupils may only attend school at the level of the grade of schooling they have been admitted to. Therefore, the pupil has to complete the school year 2002/2003 at the level of the 8th grade of schooling. It was only later, in the course of the academic year, that the school formed a pedagogical opinion stating that the pupil could was unable to continue his education in the 8 th grade without covering the material taught in the 6th and 7th grades of schooling. This indicates that the principal failed to make an assessment at the beginning of the school year, and her decision was not substantiated. As a result, the pupil could not receive education that would have satisfied his needs, which means that the pupil's right to receive education adjusted to his individual abilities and talents, as provided for in Section a) of Paragraph (3) of Article 10 of the Public Education Act, has been infringed. This unlawful situation may be rectified by providing remedial teaching to the pupil to ensure his preparation for the completion of the primary school and for continuing his education. Therefore, we issued an initiative addressed to the head of the school, stating that the pupil should complete the school year 2002/2003 in the 8th grade of schooling, while receiving remedial education from the school to learn the material of the 6th and 7th grades of schooling. We addressed another initiative to the principal on acting in compliance with the law in the future. The head of the school accepted our initiative. (K-OJOG-26/2003.)

A family spent two years in Brussels, where the children continued their education commenced in Hungary, while they were registered at a Hungarian primary school as private learners. The parent and the principal of the Hungarian school enquired whether the children would have to undergo a qualifying examination upon their return, or whether the school could recognise the certificates obtained abroad. In our position, we provided the following information to the petitioners. , If the parents applied for private learner's status for their children for the school year 2003/2004, the pupils have to pass a qualifying examination on the material of the second and the seventh grades of schooling, respectively, as - pursuant to Article 69 of the Public Education Act and Article 21 of Decree 11/1994 (VI. 8.) of the Minister of Education and Culture on the operation of educational institutions - this is how private learners, who are exempted from the attendance of compulsory lessons, must demonstrate their knowledge. On the other hand, if the parents notified the school that their children would continue their education abroad, and the children were allowed to interrupt their education, their status is deemed to have been suspended under Article 109 of the Public Education Act. This is not associated with any performance assessment, including a qualifying examination. In this case, the parent may request the recognition of studies conducted abroad. Pursuant to Article 4 of Act C of 2001 on the recognition of diplomas and certificates obtained abroad, deciding on the recognition of studies completed abroad falls within the competence of the educational institution where the applicant wishes to continue his/her education. The educational institution concerned may consult the Ministry of Education for expert assistance. The recognition of primary level education received but not completed abroad is subject to the legal status of the foreign educational institution, the period of learning and the academic requirements and the comparison of the Hungarian and the relevant foreign academic obligations. Educational institutions may recognise studies abroad if they were completed in a recognised foreign educational institution. The application for the recognition of studies must be accompanied by a certified copy of the document awarded by the foreign educational institution, which must provide credible evidence on the period of learning and the successful completion of academic requirements. A certified translation of the document must also be submitted. Educational institutions may accept non-certified translations as well. Furthermore, pursuant to Article 62 of the same act, the selected educational institution may require a qualifying examination as a condition for the recognition of studies abroad. (K-OJOG-637/2003.)

The petitioner's child had moved to Hungary from Transylvania. The boy was of compulsory school age, and enrolled at a primary school in Hungary. As at the time of submitting the complaint, both of them had a temporary residence permit only, the school decided that the boy had to pay a tuition fee. Pursuant to Paragraph 110(1) of the Public Education Act, foreign citizens are subject to compulsory education in Hungary only if they are minors not accompanied by an adult who is an asylum seeker, refugee, immigrant, has settled in Hungary, or a holder of a humanitarian temporary residence permit under Hungarian law, or are minors accompanied by an adult and holding a residence permit or a humanitarian residence permit together with such adult. Upon entry to the educational institution, evidence must be provided of compliance with these criteria. As long as they comply with these criteria, foreign citizens have a right to kindergarten education, school education and pedagogical support services under the same conditions as those applicable to Hungarian citizens, as long as they are of compulsory school age or continue studies commenced when they were still of compulsory school age. As the information provided to us indicated that the petitioner's child met the statutory criteria, he had a right to use free of charge all services that are free for pupils who are Hungarian citizens. (K-OJOG-648/2003.)

A Hungarian parent from Slovakia contacted us because his child, who was a Slovakian citizen, entered a secondary school in Hungary and was required to pay a tuition fee. The parent complained that the school had raised the tuition fee, whose initial amount was not exactly low, twice. For the petitioner, it was inconceivable and unjustified why the tuition fee had been trebled within a single school year. Pursuant to Paragraph 110(6) of Article of the Public Education Act, foreign citizens other than those who are refugees, immigrants, have settled in Hungary or hold a temporary residence permit with their parents, or hold a letter of invitation from the Ministry of Education, must pay for kindergarten education, school education and the use of pedagogical support services, unless otherwise provided for by an international agreement or the law. The tuition fee may not exceed one pupil's share of the spending on professional tasks. The head of the public education institution may reduce or forgo the tuition fee pursuant to the rules defined by the maintainer. The information provided by the maintainer revealed that the school had required the Slovakian pupil without a temporary residence permit to pay for the period from September to December of 2002 less than the maximum amount enabled by the law, i.e. four times the twelfth of the capitation grant provided by the state, in monthly instalments. The institution calculated the tuition fee for the year 2003 on the basis of the Act on the State Budget for 2003, and it was increased to HUF 26,800 this January. As of February 2003, pursuant to a bye-law of the local authority, the school used the amount of expenditure allocated to one pupil by the law for the calculation. This amounts to an annual HUF 356,449 per capita, which led to a further increase in the tuition fee. The mayor informed us that the local authority developed a grant scheme which enabled a 30-50% reduction of the monthly fee subject to academic performance. According to the declaration, the school informed the pupils of this scheme. In view of the above, we established that the tuition fee payable for schooling had been calculated by the secondary school in a lawful manner. Nevertheless, the petitioner was informed of the provisions of Paragraph (7) of Article 110 of the Public Education Act, whereby, as of the date of the entry into force of the act proclaiming the international agreement on the accession of the Republic of Hungary to the European Union, the citizens of the Member States of the European Communities may use the services secured by the Public Education Act under the same conditions as those applicable to Hungarian citizens. (K-OJOG-60/2003.)

The mother of a girl in her first grade of schooling complained after the start of the school year that the lessons started at quarter past seven at school. The parent was informed that pursuant to Paragraph (10) of Article 83 of the Public Education Act, the pupils' self government, the school board and the person or organisation authorised to act in public education had to respond to the proposals of the parents' association within thirty days. The local authority must provide a response not later the first meeting of its members following the thirtieth day after receiving the proposal. It follows from this that either a parent or the parents' association or the pupils' self government may submit a proposal in writing on changing the time of starting the first lesson. (K-OJOG-653/2003.)

A parent complained that all breaks were uniformly fifteen minutes long at school, and therefore pupils could have a cooked meal after school hours only. The head of the institution informed us that in accordance with the rules of the house of the institution, all lessons started on the hour, and all breaks lasted fifteen minutes, which made operations more transparent for pupils and teachers alike. Consequently, there was not a break for meals, but lunch was provided to all pupils after school in the cafeteria, which was open from 11:30 to 15:30. When the amended rules of the house were adopted, neither the pupils nor the parents indicated that the introduction of fifteen-minute breaks would be an obstacle to having proper meals.

In this case, we established that the rules of the house complied with the requirements of the Public Education Act, because the obligations of schools only include providing an opportunity for meals. The law does not contain detailed requirements for the timing of those meals. This means that schools must adopt the rules for meals subject to their possibilities. In this case, the rules of the house were adopted by a consensus between the principal, the teaching staff, the school board and the pupils' self government, therefore the rules of the house were adopted lawfully. (K-OJOG- 668/2003.)

A parent complained about the number of his child's lessons in his seventh grade of schooling. The complaint included that pupils had not been informed of this workload in the previous school year. The head of the institution reported that the number of lessons specified in the Public Education Act was not enough to cover the approved special curriculum of the eight-year grammar school, and the school had incorporated the time available for optional lessons into the pupils' timetables. Therefore, in this institution, pupils do not have an opportunity to participate in the maximum number of lessons specified by the law only, as that would prevent them from meeting the requirements laid down in the local curriculum. In such case, pupils undertake to attend the extra lessons at the time of enrolment. However, the above legal consequences cannot take effect unless the parents and pupils have been informed of such legal consequences in advance. In this case, the principal of the school introduced the new, special curriculum of the school at the meeting of the heads of the parents' association, together with the structure of subjects and the related lessons. The principal informed the parents that the pedagogical programme was public, and the parents were free to study it any time. However, the school provided information to the parents and pupils on the additional lessons arising from the new, special curriculum neither in the admission guidelines nor prior to enrolment.

We established that the above way of providing information had not complied with the requirements of the law. The law requires the information of parents and pupils on an individual basis, and this requirement was not fulfilled by informing the members of the parents' association. This failure of providing information deprived the pupils and their parents of the opportunity to make a choice. They did not have an opportunity to decide whether they wanted to undertake the additional workload or not. The default of the head of the institution constituted an infringement of the parents' and pupils' right to information and free choice of lessons. It was also established that the infringement could not be rectified within the school year, as the pupils attending the school had to meet the requirements of that school's curriculum, which required attending the additional lessons. The head of the institution admitted his default, and ensured the Office that the affected parties would be informed of the additional compulsory lessons both through the admission guidelines and on an individual basis. In view of this, we did not issue an initiative as a follow-up to establishing the infringement. (K-OJOG-668/2003.)