1. <LI value=11>[align=left]
    1. <LI value=11>Considering that the case was ready for hearing with respect to the preliminary objection raised by the Belgian Government, the President of the Court fixed, by an order of 23rd September 1966, the opening date for the oral proceedings in regard to the objection for Monday, 21st November, having previously consulted the Agent of the Belgian Government and the Delegates of the Commission (Rules 18, 36 and 48 (3)).

      <LI value=12>The public hearing of the preliminary objection was held at the Human Rights Building, Strasbourg, on 21st-23rd November 1966. There appeared before the Court:
      - for the Commission (Rule 29 (1)):
      Mrs. G. Janssen-Pevtschin, Mr. M. S&#248;rensen and Mr. F. Welter, Delegates;
      - for the Belgian Government, Party (Rule 28):
      Mr. A. Gomrée, Magistrate
      attached to the Belgian Ministry of Justice, Agent, assisted by
      Me. A. Bayart, Barrister
      at the Belgian Court of Cassation, Counsel,
      and
      Mr. P. Guggenheim, Professor
      at the University of Geneva, Counsel.
      The Court heard statements and submissions:
      - for the Commission: by MM. F. Welter and M. S&#248;rensen;
      - for the Belgian Government: by Me. A. Bayart and Prof. P. Guggenheim.
      On 23rd November the President declared the hearings on the preliminary objection closed.
      <LI value=13>The Court deliberated in private on 23rd and 24th November 1966 and on 31st January and 1st February 1967, after which it delivered the present judgment.
      THE FACTS
      <LI value=1>The object of the Commission's request is to submit the case to the Court, so that the Court may decide whether or not certain provisions of the Belgian linguistic legislation relating to education are in conformity with the requirements of Articles 8 and 14 (art. 8, art. 14) of the Convention and Article 2 of the First Protocol (P1-2).
      The Commission's provisional submissions on the merits of the case are set out in paragraph 33 of its first memorial.
    2. The Applicants, who are parents of families of Belgian nationality, applied to the Commission both on their own behalf and on behalf of their children under age, of whom there are more than 800. Pointing out that they are French-speaking or that they express themselves most frequently in French, they want their children to be educated in that language.
      Alsemberg, Beersel, Antwerp, Ghent, Louvain and Vilvorde, where the signatories of five of the six Applications (Nos. 1474/62, 1691/62, 1769/63, 1994/63, and 2126/64) live, belong to the region considered by law as Dutch-speaking, whereas Kraainem (Application No. 1677/62) has since 1963 formed part of a separate administrative district with a "special status". In all of these districts ("communes") part of the population - in some cases a large part - is French-speaking.
    3. Though the six Applications differ on a number of points, they are similar in many respects. For the purposes of this judgment it is sufficient to note that in substance they complain that the Belgian State:
      - does not provide any French-language education in the municipalities where the Applicants live or, in the case of Kraainem, that the provision made for such education is, in their opinion, inadequate;
      - withholds grants from any institutions in the said municipalities which may fail to comply with the linguistic provisions of the legislation for schools;
      - refuses to homologate leaving certificates issued by such institutions;
      - does not allow the Applicants' children to attend the French classes which exist in certain places;
      - thereby obliges the Applicants either to enrol their children in local schools, a solution which they consider contrary to their aspirations, or to send them to school in the "Greater Brussels district", where the language of instruction is Dutch or French according to the child's mother-tongue or usual language or in the "French-speaking region" (Walloon area). Such "scholastic emigration" is said to entail serious risks and hardships.
      In the main the Applicants complain that they and their children have suffered violation of certain Articles of the Convention and the Protocol as a result of being subjected to various provisions of the Act of 14th July 1932 "on language regulations in primary and intermediate education", the Act of 15th July 1932 "on the conferring of academic degrees", the Acts of 27th July 1955 and 29th May 1959, the Act of 30th July 1963 "on language regulations in education" and the Act of 2nd August 1963 "on the use of languages in administrative matters". The Acts of 14th and 15th July 1932 were repealed by the Act of 30th July 1963, but were still in force when the Alsemberg, Beersel, Kraainem, Antwerp and Ghent Applicants brought their cases before the Commission, and those Applicants still challenge these acts while at the same time attacking the present legislation.
    [/align]