Key facts of the case - The claimant had to make a choice between a religion and an ethics course for his children in a public school.
The claimant asked for an exemption: he does not want to choose any of these courses for his children because all of them contradict his own religious views.
The director of the school informed the claimant that he could not grant an exemption because the choice between a religion or ethics course was a legal obligation under the Belgian’s law.
According to the claimant, the legal obligation to make a choice between two philosophical courses without possibility of exemption is contrary to the right to education (article 2 of the Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) and especially the right of the parents to determine if the courses offered a philosophical complying with their own religious and philosophical beliefs.

Main reasoning of the court - The Council of State rejected the claim.
The Council of State invoked the case law of the European Court of Human Rights about the article 2 of the Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.
According to the Council of State, the claimant did not prove accurately how his personal religious and philosophical beliefs were affected if his children had taken one of two courses.
The claimant just invoked his “fundamental objections” against both courses without informing the Council about his personal religious and philosophical beliefs.
A simple statement that both courses (religion or ethics course) were contrary to the religious and philosophical beliefs of the parents could not be consistent under the case law of the European Court of Human Rights for the article 2 of the Protocol to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.