1. [align=left]
    1. that the Commission would be entitled to file a memorial in reply within the two months following the receipt of the memorial of the Government;
    2. - that the Belgian Government would have, in order to file a second and last memorial, until 15th September 1967.
    3. Both time-limits set for the Belgian Government were extended to, respectively, 10th May 1967 (Order of 26th April) and 2nd October 1967 (Order of 2nd September).<LI value=4>The Belgian Government's first memorial was received by the Registry of the Court on 9th May 1967, the Commission's memorial on 12th July 1967 and the Government's second memorial on 2nd October 1967.
      <LI value=5>On 6th June 1967, the Secretary of the Commission informed the Registrar that the Commission had instructed its President, Mr. M. S&oslash;rensen, to represent it as principal Delegate in subsequent proceedings before the Court, Mr. S. Petrén having been relieved of this function at his own request.
      <LI value=6>By a letter of 22nd November 1967, the Belgian Government informed the President of the Court that it had appointed Mr. A. de Granges de Surgères as its Agent to replace Mr. A. Gomrée, deceased.
      <LI value=7>In accordance with an Order made by the President of the Court on 7th October 1967, a public hearing was opened in Strasbourg on 25th November 1976 in the Human Rights Building; the hearing continued on 27th, 29th and 30th November.
      There appeared before the Court:
      - for the Commission:
      Mr M. S&oslash;rensen, Principal Delegate, assisted by:
      Mr. G. Janssen-Pevtschin and Mr. F. Welter, Delegates;
      - for the Belgian Government:
      Mr. A. de Granges de Surgères, Directeur général
      de l'administration de la Législation at the Belgian Ministry
      of Justice, Agent, assisted by:
      Me. A. Bayart, Barrister at
      the Belgian Court of Cassation, Counsel,
      and
      Mr. P. Guggenheim, Honorary Professor
      at the University of Geneva, and Professor at the
      University Institute of Advanced International Studies,
      Geneva, Counsel;
      Mr. A. Vander Stichele, Assistant to
      the Auditeur général of the Belgian Conseil d'&Eacute;tat, Expert;
      The Court heard statements and submissions:
      - for the Commission by MM. F. Welter and M. S&oslash;rensen;
      - for the Belgian Government by Me. A. Bayart, Mr. P. Guggenheim and Mr. A. de Granges de Surgères.
      The Court also put a number of questions to those appearing before it, to which the latter replied verbally on 29th and 30th November.
      On 30th November, the President declared the hearing closed.
      <LI value=8>The Court met in private on 30th November and 1st December 1967. On 1st December, it instructed the Registrar - who carried out the order on 5th December - to ask the Belgian Government and Commission for additional information concerning, on the one hand, the situation with regard to unsubsidised establishments in the Dutch-language area which provide French-language education.
      The replies from both the Belgian Government and the Commission reached the Registrar on 10th January 1968. The Government made certain additions to its reply in March 1968.
      <LI value=9>After further deliberation the Court pronounced 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 Protocol of 20th March 1952 (hereinafter referred to as "the Protocol") (P1-2).
      <LI value=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.
      <LI value=3>Though the six applications differ on a number of points, they are similar in many respects. For the time being 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.
      <LI value=4>The Applications in so far as they have been declared admissible by the Commission, allege that Articles 8 and 14 (art. 8, art. 14) of the Convention and Article 2 of the Protocol (P1-2) have been violated. The violation is said to be a result of the Applicants and their children 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 "relating to the use of languages in education" and the Act of 2nd August 1963 "on the use of languages in administrative matters", etc. 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.
    4. Summarising the opinion expressed in its Report of 24th June 1965 (hereinafter referred to as "the Report"), the Commission recalled in paragraph 7 of its memorial of 17th December 1965 that it took the view:
      "- by 9 votes to 3, that the legislation complained of was not incompatible with the first sentence of Article 2 of the Protocol (P1-2), considered in isolation;
      - unanimously, that the legislation was not incompatible with the second sentence of the said Article (P1-2), considered in isolation or in conjunction with Article 14 (art. 14+P1-2) of the Convention;
      - by 10 votes to 2, that the legislation was not incompatible, in the case of the Applicants, with Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention, considered in isolation or in conjunction with Article 14 (art. 14+8);
      - by 9 votes to 3, that the general system of education in the areas which are unilingual by law was not incompatible with the first sentence of Article 2 of the Protocol, considered in conjunction with Article 14 (art. 14+P1-2) of the Convention;
      - by 11 votes to 1, that the same was true of the "special status" conferred by Section 7 of the Act of 2nd August 1963 on six bilingual communes, of which Kraainem is one, on the periphery of Brussels;
      - by 7 votes to 5, that the Acts of 1963 were incompatible with the first sentence of Article 2 of the Protocol, read in conjunction with Article 14 (art. 14+P1-2) of the Convention, in so far as they result in the total withdrawal of subsidies from provincial, commune and private schools providing, in the form of non-subsidised classes and in addition to instruction given in the language prescribed by the language legislation, complete or partial education in another language; - unanimously, that the conditions on which children whose parents live outside the Greater Brussels district may be enrolled in schools in that district (Section 17 of the Act of 30th July 1963) were not, in the case of the Applicants, incompatible with the first sentence of Article 2 of the Protocol, read in conjunction with Article 14 (art. 14+P1-2) of the Convention;
      - that the Acts of 1963 were incompatible with the first sentence of Article 2 of the Protocol, read in conjunction with Article 14 (art. 14+P1-2) of the Convention, in so far as they prevent certain children, solely on the basis of their parents' place of residence, from attending French-language schools at Louvain (8 votes to 4) and in the above-mentioned six communes on the periphery of Brussels (7 votes to 5);
      - by 8 votes to 4, that the legislation complained of was also incompatible with the first sentence of Article 2 of the Protocol, read in conjunction with Article 14 (art. 14+P1-2) of the Convention, in so far as it has resulted, since 1932, in a refusal to homologate certificates relating to secondary schooling not in accordance with the language requirements."
    5. In the course of the written proceedings the following submissions were made on the merits of the case:
      - by the Belgian Government in its memorial of 9th May 1967:
      "The Belgian Government submits the following conclusions:
      (1) The Belgian legislation attacked in the Applications is incompatible neither with Article 2 of the Protocol (P1-2) nor with Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention if those provisions are considered in isolation.
      (2) Nor is it contrary to the first and second sentence of Article 2 of the Protocol or Article 8 of the Convention even if read in conjunction with Article 14 (art. 14+P1-2, art. 14+8) of the Convention.
      (3) Neither the 1963 Acts nor those of 1932 are incompatible with Article 2, first sentence, of the Protocol, read in conjunction with Article 14 (art. 14+P1-2) of the Convention, in so far as they forbid the establishment or subsidising by the State of any schools which do not comply with the language legislation.
      (4) The 1963 Acts are not contrary to Article 2, first sentence, of the Protocol, read in conjunction with Article 14 (art. 14+P1-2) of the Convention, in so far as they result in the total withdrawal of subsidies from schools that, while they have sections in which tuition is given in the regional language, also provide complete or partial education in another language.
      (5) The system introduced by the Act of 2nd August 1963 in the communes on the periphery of Brussels, including Kraainem, is not incompatible with Article 2, first sentence, of the Protocol, read in conjunction with Article 14 (art. 14+P1-2) of the Convention.
    [/align]