On June 18, the European Court of Human Rights rejected the appeal filed by a number of families against the ruling of the TSJC that obliged a school in Canet to teach 25% of the lessons in Spanish in a P5 class. According to the Court, the appeal is not well-founded; someone should have explained to the families that alleging a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights in relation to this matter had no prospects.That the inadmissibility was so foreseeable does not detract from the fact that the Court's reasoning is entirely inadmissible. (No serious judge can claim, for example, that in Catalonia Spanish is "prohibited" as a language of instruction.) But beyond these trivial observations, a deeper reflection is necessary.The first thing to say is that in comparative terms the Catalan model is difficult to understand. In Europe there is no other case in which immersive teaching in a regional or minority language is compulsory for all students in the relevant territory. In Wales and Scotland, there is immersive teaching in Welsh and Gaelic respectively, but it is not compulsory. In the Basque Country and Navarre, there is also immersive teaching in Basque, but it is also not compulsory. Etc.Besides the known judicial reprimands, mandatory immersive teaching in Catalan has also been criticized because it "Castilianizes" Catalan-speaking students, to the extent that (for demographic and social reasons) Spanish has become de facto the language of common use in most educational centers. There is a political party (Alhora) that professes this belief and advocates for two educational networks to choose from: an immersive network with 100% in Catalan and a non-immersive network with Catalan and Spanish as vehicular languages.

1. The ECHR's decision regarding the presence of the Catalan language in the education system has probably been the hardest blow this issue has received since the TC's ruling against the 2006 Statute.

Seventy-five years after its approval (November 4, 1950), the European Convention on Human Rights The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is at the heart of the continent's political debate. Unregulated immigration, security, and the rapid advancement of technologies like artificial intelligence have reopened the discussion about how far a convention born from the ashes of World War II can—or should—be reinterpreted. But the fundamental question is more delicate: to what extent can the ECHR be made more flexible without jeopardizing the basic protections it is theoretically meant to guarantee?