Key facts of the case - The parents of a pupil in a public school did not want to accept the sexual education that was given in school. They claimed that this violated the child’s religious freedom (Art. 4 Basic Law) and their own freedom to bring up their child in religion and ideology (Art. 4 I in conjunction with Art. 6 II S.2 of the Basic Law). They wanted their child to be exempt from sexual education and they wanted the Courts to find that the schools have to consult the parents on the content of the education.

Main reasoning of the court - With this order, the Federal Administrative Court confirmed its position which is in accordance with the jurisdiction of the Federal Constitutional Court.
As long as the schools do not indoctrinate the students with certain views and approaches, the parents’ right to educate their children in religion and ideology can be restricted by the educational role of the State (Art. 7 I Basic Law).
The schools are obliged to organize the sexual education with caution and tolerance towards all religions and ideologies. Yet, the parents cannot hinder the schools from integrating facts and ideas into the sexual education that are not in accordance with their own religion.