Belgian Linguistic Case
   HOME

TheInfoList



OR:

The ''Belgian Linguistic case (No. 2)'' (1968
1 EHRR 252
is a formative case on the
right to education The right to education has been recognized as a human rights, human right in a number of international conventions, including the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which recognizes a right to free education, free, pr ...
and the right to freedom from discrimination under the
European Convention of Human Rights The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR; formally the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) is a supranational convention to protect human rights and political freedoms in Europe. Drafted in 1950 by the ...
, Protocol 1, art 2. It related to "certain aspects of the laws on the use of
languages Language is a structured system of communication that consists of grammar and vocabulary. It is the primary means by which humans convey meaning, both in spoken and signed forms, and may also be conveyed through writing. Human language is ch ...
in
education in Belgium Education in Belgium is regulated and for the most part financed by one of the three communities: Flemish, French and German-speaking. Each community has its own school system, with small differences among them. The federal government plays a ...
", was decided by the
European Court of Human Rights The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), also known as the Strasbourg Court, is an international court of the Council of Europe which interprets the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The court hears applications alleging that a co ...
in 1968.


Facts

The applicants submitted six applications (Applications No: 1474/62, 1677/62, 1691/62, 1769/63, 1994/63, 2126/64) between 1962 and 1964 on their own behalf and on the behalf of their children, alleging that Belgian linguistic legislation, relating to education, infringed on their rights under the European Convention, namely Article 8 (family life) in conjunction with Article 14 (non-discrimination), and Article 2 of the Protocol 1 (right to education) of March 1952. The Acts they brought litigation against basically stated the language of education shall be
Dutch Dutch or Nederlands commonly refers to: * Something of, from, or related to the Netherlands ** Dutch people as an ethnic group () ** Dutch nationality law, history and regulations of Dutch citizenship () ** Dutch language () * In specific terms, i ...
in the Dutch-speaking region,
French French may refer to: * Something of, from, or related to France ** French language, which originated in France ** French people, a nation and ethnic group ** French cuisine, cooking traditions and practices Arts and media * The French (band), ...
in the French-speaking region and
German German(s) may refer to: * Germany, the country of the Germans and German things **Germania (Roman era) * Germans, citizens of Germany, people of German ancestry, or native speakers of the German language ** For citizenship in Germany, see also Ge ...
in the German-speaking region.


Counsel submissions

The applicants, whose children totalled more than 800, asserted that the law of the Dutch-speaking regions where they lived did not include adequate provisions for French-language education. They also complained that the Belgian state withheld grants from institutions in these regions that did not comply with the linguistic provisions set out in the legislation for schools and refused to homologate certificates issued by these institutions. Further, the state did not allow the applicants’ children to attend French classes in certain places, forcing applicants to enrol their children in local schools, contrary to their aspirations, or send them further afield, which entailed risks and hardships. The Government argued that the right to education in one's own language was not included in the Convention and the Protocol, and that the applicants did not belong to a national minority within the meaning of Article 14.


Judgment


Outcome

The Court found by a majority of 8 to 7 that one of the Acts violated Art 14. But the Court also found unanimously that there had been no breach of Articles 8 and 14 of the Convention, and Article 2 of the protocol, with regard to the other contested legislation and points at issue.


Reasoning

The case is significant because of the Court's willingness to find a breach of Article 14 without a concurrent violation of another Convention right. Article 14 (art. 14) of the Convention provides that: "The enjoyment of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured without discrimination on any f the grounds" It was not clear from the early case law of the court whether Article 14 could be interpreted to carry any independent force in the absence of a breach of another Convention right. Indeed, the Belgian Government sought to advance a narrow construction of the Article and submitted before the Commission that "a violation of Article 14 (art. 14) without simultaneous violation of another Article of the Convention is legally impossible". This interpretation would have made Article 14 redundant, however: if the applicants could demonstrate that their otherwise recognised rights have been breached, Article 14 would have had no independent role to play. The court rejected that construction of Article 14. It relied, ''inter alia,'' on the general nature of the opening terms employed in Article 14, "the ''enjoyment'' of the rights and freedoms set forth in this Convention shall be secured" (emphasis added). Thus, it sufficed that State action fell within the ambit of another Convention right, without violating it, for Article 14 to be engaged. This was a significant milestone in recognising an independent basis for a right of non-discrimination under the Convention.


Legal analysis

In reaching its decision the Court considered that the principle of equality of treatment enshrined in Article 14 was violated if the distinction had no objective and reasonable justification, did not pursue a legitimate aim, and was not proportionate to the aim pursued. Further to this, the Court opined that the right to education implied the right to be educated in the national language, and did not include the provision that the parent's linguistic preferences be respected. The operative part of the Court's judgment read as follows.


See also

* ECHR *'' Kjeldsen, Busk, Madsen and Pedersen v Denmark'' (1976) 1 EHRR 711 *'' Campbell and Cosans v United Kingdom'' (1982) 4 EHRR 293 *'' Ali (FC) v Headteacher and Governors of Lord Grey School'' [2006
UKHL 14


References

{{reflist


External links


Final judgment

1967 partial judgment on Belgium's preliminary objections
European Court of Human Rights cases decided by the Grand Chamber Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights Bilingualism in Belgium Linguistic rights Minority schools European Court of Human Rights cases involving Belgium 1968 in case law 1968 in Belgium 1968 in education Education in Belgium Education case law