- that the Applicants' complaints are unfounded."<LI value=7>The following submissions were made during the oral proceedings:
- by the Commission, on 25th November 1967:
"The Commission maintains the submissions it made to the Court at the end of its memorial on the merits of the case, while reserving the right to modify them or add to them in the light of subsequent proceedings."
- by the Belgian Government, on 27th November 1967:
"I have the honour to read to the Court the submissions made by the Belgian Government at the present stage of proceedings, while reserving the right to make any necessary additions or amendments during subsequent proceedings.
Principal submissions
May it please the Court,
To find that the measures of which the Applicants complain, whether the provisions invoked by the Applicants concerning them are considered in isolation or in conjunction, do not interfere with the rights or freedoms set forth in the European Convention on Human Rights and Protocol and, replying in greater detail to the questions submitted by the Commission:
To rule that Belgian legislation is not incompatible with:
(a) the first sentence of Article 2 of the Protocol (P1-2), considered in isolation;
(b) the second sentence of that Article (P1-2), considered in isolation;
(c) Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention, considered in isolation;
(d) the first sentence of Article 2 of the Protocol, read in conjunction with Article 14 (art. 14+P1-2) of the Convention;
(e) the second sentence of Article 2 of the Protocol, read in conjunction with Article 14 (art. 14+P1-2) of the Convention;
(f) Article 8 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 14 (art. 14+8).
In particular the Belgian Government requests the Court to find that in the case of the Applicants none of those Articles, whether considered in conjunction or in isolation, has been violated, inter alia:
(a) in so far as the Acts of 1932 prevented, and those of 1963 prevent: the establishment, or the subsidisation by the State, of schools not in conformity with the general linguistic requirements;
(b) in so far as the Acts of 1963 result in the total withdrawal of subsidies from provincial, commune or private schools providing, in the form of non-subsidised classes and in addition to the instruction given in the language prescribed by the linguistic Acts, full or partial instruction in another language;
(c) with regard to the special status conferred by Section 7 (1) and (3) of the Act of 2nd August 1963 on six communes, of which Kraainem is one, on the periphery of Brussels;
(d) with regard to the conditions on which children whose parents reside outside the Greater Brussels district may be enrolled in the schools of that district (Section 17 of the Act of 30th July 1963);
(e) in so far as the last paragraph of Section 7 of the Act of 30th July 1963 and Section 7 (1) and (3) of the Act of 2nd August 1963 prevent certain children, solely on the basis of their parents' place of residence, from attending French-language schools at Louvain and in the six communes mentioned under (c) above;
(f) in so far as the Acts of 1932 resulted, and those of 1963 result, in refusal to homologate certificates relating to secondary schooling not in conformity with the language requirements in education.
Auxiliary submission
If the Court accepts the Commission's opinion that the first sentence of Article 2 of the Protocol, read in conjunction with Article 14 (art. 14+P1-2) of the Convention, lays down an obligation not to discriminate, then
May it please the Court:
To rule that the Belgian legislation complained of is in accordance with that requirement as it provides for no unlawful or arbitrary discrimination against the Applicants within the meaning of Article 14 (art. 14) of the Convention:
May it please the Court:
To rule that the Applicants' complaints are without foundation."
- by the Commission, on 29th November 1967:
"It only remains for me to confirm the submissions made by the Commission in its memorial of 11th July 1967."
- by the Belgian Government on 30th November 1967:
"The submissions we had the honour to make to the Court (on 27th November 1967) may be considered as final ones."
THE LAWS ON THE USE OF LANGUAGES IN EDUCATION IN BELGIUM
<LI value=8>The laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium have evolved considerably since the foundation of the Kingdom (1830), within the wider framework of the evolution of the "Belgian linguistic problem" on which the Commission and the Belgian Government have furnished detailed explanations to the Court (cf. in particular, paragraph 344 of the Report, and the Note of the hearing of the morning of 27th November 1967). Before examining and deciding the six questions enumerated in the respective submissions of those appearing before it, the Court believes that it is useful to give a brief outline of the principal laws on language in education which have been passed in Belgium between 1914 and the present day.
<LI value=9>Article 17 of the Belgian Constitution of 7th February 1831 provides:
"Education shall be unrestricted; all measures of restriction are prohibited; crimes may be punished only in accordance with the law. Public education provided at the expense of the State shall also be regulated by law."
Moreover, Article 23 provides:
"The use of the languages spoken in Belgium is optional. This matter may be regulated only by law and only as regards the acts of the public authority and the judicial matters."
These two Articles have never been amended.
<LI value=10>The earliest linguistic laws concerned not education but criminal procedure (Acts of 1870 and 1908) as well as the vote and the promulgation of laws (Act of 1898). Until 1932 parents in Belgium enjoyed a fairly wide freedom with regard to the language of education. An Act of 19th May 1914 made primary education compulsory. According to Section 15, a child's maternal or usual language, determined on the declaration made by the head of the family, was the language of instruction in each grade throughout the country. If the head of the school considered that the child had not the ability to profit from the instruction in the language designated, the head of the family might appeal to the inspectorate. Thanks to fairly broad interpretation of the text, some Dutch-speaking parents had their children educated in French. In some parts of Flanders there were, in addition to Dutch-language primary schools, State and private French-language primary schools, whilst secondary education was provided sometimes in French, sometimes half in French and half in Dutch (paragraphs 138 and 345 of the Report).
المفضلات