Facts

The parents (appellants) of the daughter [C.A.] (born 2008), who attended the 4th grade of the primary school [U.] in the 2018/19 school year, challenged a disciplinary fine of CHF 600.-- for unexcused school absences (compulsory schooling).

Facts:

  • At the beginning of July 2018, the parents stated that the daughter could not attend the class camp from 13-17 August 2018 because of bronchitis. On 3 July 2018, the headmaster requested a medical certificate and pointed out that during the camp the daughter had to attend lessons in [B.] 's class, namely on Monday, 13 August 2018, at 7:55 a.m.
  • The parents submitted a certificate of unfitness to attend the camp issued by Dr. med. [D.] on 2 July 2018.
  • The daughter did not appear on 13 August 2018. On 14 August 2018, the mother stated by telephone that the medical certificate was valid; the daughter appeared only at 1:30 p.m. and was dismissed at 3:20 p.m. because she was crying.
  • On 17 August 2018, the school board gave the parents an opportunity to comment. The father argued that he had forgotten the school date; subsequently, a certificate of unfitness dated 22 August 2018 ('according to anamnestic information') was submitted.
  • By decision of 14 September 2018, the school board fined the parents CHF 600.--. The Education Council dismissed the appeal on 28 October 2018; the Administrative Court of the Canton of St. Gallen dismissed the complaint on 11 May 2020 (B 2019/242).

Before the Federal Supreme Court (public law appeal dated 19 June 2020), the parents requested that the judgment of the lower court be set aside, alternatively that the school board's decision be set aside for breach of recusal rules, and subsidiarily that the fine be set aside in its entirety. The Head of the Department of Education and the Primary School Board requested that the appeal be dismissed.

Points in dispute: (1) waiver of an oral hearing (Art. 6 no. 1 ECHR, Art. 9 Cst., cantonal law); (2) recusal of the school board president; (3) right to be heard regarding quorum and participation of school board members; (4) joint service of the fine on both parents; (5) substantive requirements and proportionality of the disciplinary fine.

Considerations

Formal matters (consid. 1): The appeal against the final cantonal decision in a public law matter is admissible (Art. 82 let. a, Art. 86 para. 1 let. d, Art. 90 FSCA). The requests to set aside the school board's decision are inadmissible because of the devolutive effect (Art. 107 para. 2 FSCA; devolutive effect). The excessively long and verbose appeal (approximately 50 pages compared with a 20-page judgment) is just barely considered sufficient within the meaning of Art. 42 para. 1 FSCA, which is why no remittal for correction is ordered.

Oral hearing (consid. 3): Under the Engel criteria, the disciplinary fine under Art. 97 para. 1 PESA/SG is not of a criminal nature (confirming judgment 1P.102/2000), so Art. 6 no. 1 ECHR does not apply with respect to a criminal charge. The scope of application regarding civil rights (good reputation) is also not engaged, since compulsory schooling is affected and any damage to reputation would be only a very remote consequence. The refusal of an oral hearing under cantonal law (Art. 125 para. 1 PESA/SG in conjunction with Art. 55 para. 1 ORP/SG) is not arbitrary. The appellants have not substantiated a direct claim under Art. 29 Cst.

Recusal (consid. 4): The complaints under Art. 29 para. 1, Art. 30 para. 1 Cst. and Art. 6 no. 1 ECHR are not substantiated. The cantonal recusal rule (Art. 7 para. 1 let. a-c ORP/SG) was not applied arbitrarily: the family doctor was not personally involved in the proceedings, and a relationship by marriage does not necessarily lead to bias. The assertion regarding representation of the sister in divorce proceedings is irrelevant.

Right to be heard and quorum (consid. 5): The appellants challenged the school board's quorum only before the lower court, although they could already have done so in the appeal proceedings. Formal objections must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity; raising them late contravenes good faith. The lower court therefore did not have to examine which school board members had participated and was entitled to reject corresponding requests for evidence. There is no breach of Art. 29 para. 2 Cst. or of the duty to investigate. The complaints regarding Art. 30 para. 1 and Art. 29 para. 1 Cst. are…