Dismissal of the appeal against the refusal of exemption from sex education

Facts

The appellants, parents of children in kindergarten and primary school, applied for exemption of their children from sex education. The competent school authorities rejected the requests. The parents appealed to the Department of Education, which referred the appeals to the Government Council of the Canton of Basel-Stadt. The Government Council rejected the appeals and imposed costs on the appellants. The Court of Appeal of the Canton of Basel-Stadt rejected the appeals lodged against this decision, with costs. The appellants filed a complaint with the Federal Supreme Court in public law matters.

The appellants argued that sex education violated their fundamental rights, in particular their freedom of religion and conscience, the protection of private and family life, and personal freedom. They requested that the judgments of the Court of Appeal of the Canton of Basel-Stadt be set aside and their children be exempted from sex education.

Considerations

The Federal Supreme Court examined the admissibility of the complaint and came to the conclusion that the appellants were formally aggrieved by the contested decisions and had a current interest in legal protection. The court heard the complaint and examined the grievances of the appellants.

The Federal Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the freedom of religion and conscience of the appellants could be violated by sex education, as they argued that the teaching affected their central basic concepts of morality and ethics. The court also examined the scope of protection of family life and came to the conclusion that the right of parents to educate their children fell under the protection of family life.

The Federal Supreme Court examined the conditions for intervention within the meaning of Art. 36 Cst. and came to the conclusion that attending sex education did not affect the core of the freedom of religion and conscience or the protection of family life. The court found that the interference with the fundamental rights of the appellants was not severe, as the teaching did not have a…