[align=left] COURT (PLENARY)
CASE "RELATING TO CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE LAWS ON THE USE OF LANGUAGES IN EDUCATION IN BELGIUM"v. BELGIUM
(Application no 1474/62; 1677/62; 1691/62; 1769/63; 1994/63; 2126/64)
JUDGMENT
STRASBOURG9 February 1967




In the case "relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium",
The European Court of Human Rights, taking its decision in plenary session in accordance with Rule 48 of the Rules of Court, and comprising:
Mr. R. CASSIN, President,
Mr. A. HOLMBÄCK,
Mr. A. VERDROSS,
Mr. G. MARIDAKIS,
Mr. E. RODENBOURG,
Mr. A. ROSS,
Mr. T. WOLD,
Mr. G. BALLADORE PALLIERI,
Mr. H. MOSLER,
Mr. M. ZEKIA,
Mr. A. FAVRE,
Sir Humphrey WALDOCK,
Mr. S. BILGE,
Mr. G. WIARDA,
Mr. A. MAST, Ad hoc judge,
Mr. H. GOLSONG, Registrar,
Decides as follows on the preliminary objection raised by the Belgian Government, Party:
PROCEDURE
  1. <LI value=1>By a request dated 25th June 1965, the European Commission of Human Rights (hereinafter called "the Commission") referred to the Court a case concerning certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium (Rule 31 (2) of the Rules of Court).

    The origin of the case lies in six Applications against the Kingdom of Belgium lodged with the Commission under Article 25 (art. 25) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter called "the Convention"). These Applications, the earliest of which is dated 16th June 1962 and the most recent 28th January 1964, were made by inhabitants of Alsemberg and Beersel, Kraainem, Antwerp and environs, Ghent and environs, Louvain and environs and Vilvorde.
    The Commission's request, to which was attached the report provided for in Article 31 (art. 31) of the Convention, was lodged with the Registry of the Court within the period of three months laid down in Articles 32 (1) and 47 (art. 32-1, art. 47). In it the Commission referred firstly to the powers conferred on it by Articles 44 and 48 (a) (art. 44, art. 48-a) and secondly to the Belgian Government's declaration of 8th June 1960 recognising the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court (Article 46) (art. 46).
    <LI value=2>On 22nd July 1965 the Belgian Government, to which the Registrar had transmitted the Commission's request on 25th June 1965, informed him that it wished to appear in the case (former Rule 21 (2)).
    <LI value=3>Mr. H. Rolin, Vice-President, the elected judge of Belgian nationality, was due to sit as an ex officio member of the Chamber to be set up to consider the case (Article 43) (art. 43). However, by letter dated 5th July 1965, he withdrew for the reason that he had personally taken part, as a Senator, in the drafting of the Acts of Parliament in dispute (Rule 24 (2)). On 1st September 1965 the Belgian Government appointed, as an ad hoc judge, Mr. A. Mast, Conseiller of the Conseil d'&Eacute;tat of Belgium and Professor Extraordinary at the University of Ghent (Article 43 (art. 43); Rule 23 (1)).
    On 14th September 1965 the President of the Court drew by lot the names of the other six members of the Chamber and the names of three substitutes (Article 43 (art. 43); Rule 21 (5)).
    <LI value=4>On 29th September 1965 the President of the Chamber ascertained the views of the Agent of the Belgian Government and the Delegates of the Commission on the procedure to be followed. By an Order of the same day he decided that the Commission should present its first memorial not later than 31st December 1965 and that the Belgian Government should have a period of six weeks or three months for its memorial in reply, depending on whether or not it wished to invoke any preliminary objections (Rule 35 (1)).
    <LI value=5>The Commission's first memorial, in which certain observations by the Applicants were taken into account (Rule 76 of the Commission's Rules of Procedure), was received by the Registry on 17th December 1965. In transmitting it to the Agent of the Belgian Government the Registrar stated, on the instructions of the President of the Chamber, that the period allowed to the Government would not begin to run until 3rd January 1966.
    <LI value=6>In a letter of 20th January 1966 the Belgian Government asked the Chamber to relinquish jurisdiction in favour of the Plenary Court. It pointed out that the judgment to be rendered by the Court could "provoke extremely violent political feelings in Belgium, which in turn could exert a substantial influence on the structure of the Belgian State". It added that the Court would have to pronounce on the point "whether the Applicants (had) not attempted to submit to the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights questions which (belonged) to the sphere reserved" to the Contracting States. In conclusion it stressed "that, in its report, the majority of the Commission (had given) to Article 14 (art. 14) of the Convention a very precise interpretation which, however, according to certain dissenting opinions in this report, conflicted with that given in several previous decisions of the Commission". The Government inferred from this that the case raised "serious questions affecting the interpretation of the Convention", which justified the application of Rule 48. In view of "the complications of the case" it also requested an extension of the period of time allowed to it in order "to lodge one or more preliminary objections", stating that it needed "at least four months" and that a time-limit expiring on 31st May "would be agreeable" to it.
    Consulted on the point by the President of the Chamber, the Delegates of the Commission by a letter dated 2nd February 1966 replied in substance that:
    -"considering the particular nature of the case" they had "no objection to raise" to the "suggestion" that the Chamber should relinquish jurisdiction, a suggestion on which it was for the Chamber, and the Chamber alone, to decide;
    -they left the matter of the additional period of time requested by the Belgian Government to the decision of the President of the Chamber;
    -they were not able to pronounce on the preliminary objection contemplated by the Government "as long as (its) propositions ..., (had) not been brought to their knowledge in a more developed form", especially since the objection in question seemed "entirely new", the Belgian Government never having "contested the competence of the Commission, but only the admissibility of the Applications".
    <LI value=7>By an Order of 3rd February 1966 the President extended the time-limit mentioned above to 25th April, on which date the Belgian Government's first memorial was received by the Registry. The memorial contained a preliminary objection, the purpose of which was "that the Court should be precluded from examining the merits of the dispute" (Rule 46).
    <LI value=8>The Chamber deliberated at Strasbourg on 2nd and 3rd May 1966. On 3rd May it decided, by virtue of Rule 48, "to relinquish jurisdiction forthwith in favour of the Plenary Court" for the reason that "the case before it (raised) a number of serious questions affecting the interpretation of the Convention, especially its Articles 45, 8 and 14 (art. 45, art. 8, art. 14) and Article 2 of the Protocol (P1-2)".
    Immediately afterwards the plenary Court sat briefly to discuss the subsequent procedure. It was agreed at this sitting that Mr. C. Maguire, elected judge on 27th September 1965, would not be able to take part in the consideration of the case, since he had already dealt with it as a member of the Commission (Rule 24 (2)).
    <LI value=9>Having ascertained the views of the Agent of the Belgian Government and the Delegates of the Commission, the President of the Court decided on 4th May that the Commission should have until 15th July 1966 to present a second memorial and that the Government should be entitled to reply to it in writing within two months (Rules 35 and 48 (3) in combination).
  2. The Commission's second memorial, in which certain observations by the Applicants were taken into account, was received by the Registry on 15th July 1966 and that of the Belgian Government on 12th September.
    On 20th September the Delegates of the Commission informed the Registrar that they would not request permission to file a further memorial, though they reserved the right to make observations in the oral proceedings.
[/align]