After the start of the school year, LSM+ learned of a de facto ban on primary school pupils using any language other than the national language for personal communication at school. In at least one case, this provision was documented in the school's binding "Internal Regulations", among other "Pupil Obligations".
The school is referred to in these rules as "the Institution", and one of the pupil's obligations is formulated as "to use the national language of the Republic of Latvia - Latvian - at the Institution (during lessons, breaks) and at events organized by the Institution (excursions, class parties, etc.), as well as when representing the school outside the Institution".
These rules also provide for various disciplinary penalties for failure to comply with these obligations, ranging from a verbal reprimand to a reprimand with a note in the personal file and even the involvement of the orphanage court.
LSM+ asked the Ombudsman's Office to explain the situation, not limiting itself to one school and describing the general "framework" established by the legislation of Latvia as a state governed by the rule of law.
The answers were provided by Laila Grāvere, Head of the Children's Rights Department at the Ombudsman's Office:
LSM+: In the Ombudsman's view, should private/informal voluntary communication between pupils on school grounds or in the school building (e.g. in the yard, corridor, canteen, changing room, toilet, etc.) during breaks and before and after school be regulated?
No, private communication between pupils during breaks, before or after lessons should be left to the discretion of the pupils. And the school has no reason to restrict the language of communication in these cases. Pupils, as private individuals, can do what is not prohibited by law. External legislation does not restrict the use of languages in private communication between individuals who wish to communicate in a particular language. Article 2(3) of the State Language Law states that the law does not apply to the use of languages in the informal communication of Latvian citizens. Informal communication between pupils takes place during recess, so pupils should be allowed to speak to each other in the language of their choice during recess, this issue should not be regulated.
Communication between pupils and school staff during break time is not informal communication and must therefore be in the national language.
When another language is used for communication between pupils during school breaks, care should be taken to ensure that its use does not exclude pupils who do not speak or do not wish to speak that language. In a situation where a conversation partner does not use a foreign language, the use of a foreign language is restricted by the provision in the fifth paragraph of the preamble to the Latvian Constitution that the Latvian language as the only state language is the basis of a cohesive society, and the obligation of a pupil to respect the rights and interests of other persons, set out in Section 54(4) of the Education Law.
Does the Ombudsman consider that a pupil's presence outside the school premises wearing the school uniform or other symbols (emblems, brands, inscriptions on clothing or bags, etc.) by which the school could be identified, constitutes "representing the school"?
No, representing the school consists of pupils taking part in subject-specific olympiads at city and national level, sports competitions, concerts by choirs and other artistic groups, and other events organized for pupils.
Is the requirement [of the school's internal rules] lawful in the view of the Ombudsman (does it comply with the legislation of the Republic of Latvia, and with the international obligations of the Republic of Latvia)?
No, the obligation in the school's internal rules to use the Latvian language also in private communication outside school hours is too restrictive.
