The Belgian Linguistic case (No. 2) (1968) 1 EHRR 252 is a formative case on the right to education and the right to freedom from discrimination under the European Convention of Human Rights, Protocol 1, art 2. It related to "certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium", was decided by the European Court of Human Rights in 1968.
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 in the Dutch-speaking region, French in the French-speaking region and German in the German-speaking region.
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.
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.
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 [of 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.[1] 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.[2]
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"[3] (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.[4]
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.