## Facts

- Belgium enacted language legislation regulating the language of instruction in public and subsidized schools, tying public funding and recognition of certificates to compliance with those rules.
- The legislation largely followed a territorial model: Dutch-language instruction in the Dutch-speaking region, French in the French-speaking region, and German in the German-speaking region.
- French-speaking Belgian parents and children living in Dutch-speaking communes (including areas near Brussels) complained that the rules limited French-language schooling options, affected grants to certain schools, and impaired official recognition of studies completed in noncompliant institutions.
- The applicants alleged that the regime forced children either to attend Dutch-language schools against parental preferences or to travel to French-language schools elsewhere, causing hardship.
- The applicants brought claims under Article 8 (private and family life), Article 14 (non-discrimination), and Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 (right to education and respect for parents’ convictions).

## Issues

1. Whether Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 guarantees education in a language chosen by parents or requires a state to establish or subsidize particular forms of schooling.
2. Whether the Belgian language-in-education regime denied the right to education or failed to respect private and family life under Article 8.
3. Whether differences in treatment created by the regime constituted discrimination under Article 14 when read with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 and/or Article 8.
4. Whether a residence-based restriction limiting access to certain existing French-language schools (section 7(3) of the 2 August 1963 Act) was objectively justified.

## Decision

- The Court held that Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 secures a right of access to existing educational institutions and does not require states to create or subsidize education of any particular type or level.
- The Court held that Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 does not confer a general right to be taught in a language of one’s choice; a territorial language regime is not, as such, incompatible with the Convention.
- The Court unanimously found no violation of Article 8 and no violation of Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 taken alone.
- The Court found no violation of Article 14 (with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 and/or Article 8) as to most challenged aspects of the legislative scheme.
- By 8–7, the Court found that section 7(3) of the 2 August 1963 Act violated Article 14 in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 because it excluded certain children from access to existing French-language schools in specified communes based solely on parents’ residence, without sufficient justification.

## Legal Principles

- Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 primarily guarantees access to existing educational institutions; it does not impose a duty to establish or subsidize particular educational arrangements.
- The right to education must be practical and effective and may include the ability, under domestic rules, to obtain official recognition of completed studies so that education received has practical value.
- Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 does not establish a general entitlement to instruction in a language chosen by parents.
- Article 14 is applied in conjunction with another Convention right and may be violated even when the associated right is not violated on its own.
- A distinction is discriminatory under Article 14 if it lacks an objective and reasonable justification, meaning it does not pursue a legitimate aim or there is no reasonable proportionality between means and ends.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld Belgium’s territorial approach to language in education and rejected claims that the Convention requires instruction in a chosen language, but it condemned a specific residence-based exclusion from existing French-language schools as unjustified discrimination under Article 14 read with the right to education.


Case Relating to Certain Aspects of the Laws on the Use of Languages in Education in Belgium (Belgian Linguistics Case) v. Belg., 6 Eur. Ct. H.R. (ser. A) (1968)