1. [align=left]
    1. 6) The residence conditions laid down in the 1963 Acts for admission to the French-language schools at Louvain and in the communes on the periphery of Brussels, including Kraainem, are compatible with Article 2, first sentence, of the Protocol, read in conjunction with Article 14 (art. 14+P1-2) of the Convention.
      1. (7) The provisions of the 1932 and 1963 Acts are compatible 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 result in the refusal of homologation of secondary school leaving certificates for the sole reason that the schooling covered by them has not been in accordance with the requirements of the language legislation.
    2. The Belgian Government reserves the right to add to or modify these conclusions in the course of the proceedings".
    3. - by the Commission in its memorial of 12th July 1967 and, in almost identical terms, in that of 17th December 1965, prior to the judgment of 9th February 1967:
      1. "As it recalled in its memorial of 17th December 1965, the Commission acts in the general interest and not, strictly speaking, as plaintiff vis-à-vis the High Contracting Party against which the Applications submitted to it for appraisal are directed.
    4. It therefore once more formulates its conclusions interrogatively and invites the Court to decide whether or not the legislation of which the Applicants complain satisfies the requirements of:
      1. (a) the first sentence of Article 2 of the Protocol (P1-2), considered in isolation;
      1. (b) the second sentence of that Article (P1-2), considered in isolation;
      1. (c) Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention, considered in isolation;
      1. (d) the first sentence of Article 2 of the Protocol read in conjunction with Article 14 (art. 14+P1-2) of the Convention;
      1. (e) the second sentence of Article 2 of the Protocol, read in conjunction with Article 14 (art. 14+P1-2) of the Convention;
      1. (f) Article 8 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 14 (art. 14+8).
    5. In particular the Commission requests the Court to decide whether or not, in the case of the Applicants, there is violation of all or some of the above-mentioned articles, inter alia:
      1. (a) in so far as the Acts of 1932 prevented, and those of 1963 prevent:
    6. - the establishment, or
    7. - the subsidisation
    8. by the State, of schools not in conformity with the general linguistic requirements;
      1. (b) in so far as the Acts of 1963 result in the complete 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;
      1. (c) with regard to the special status conferred by Section 7, third paragraph, of the Act of 2nd August 1963 on six communes, of which Kraainem is one, on the periphery of Brussels;
      1. (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);
      1. (e) in so far as Section 7, last paragraph, of the Act of 30th July 1963 and Section 7, third paragraph, 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;
      1. (f) in so far as the Acts of 1932 resulted, and those of 1963 result, in absolute refusal to homologate certificates relating to secondary schooling not in conformity with the language requirements in education.
    9. For the reasons stated at the end of its report (...), the Commission still refrains for the time being from putting forward conclusions on the claims for damages submitted by the Applicants of Alsemberg and Beersel, Kraainem and Louvain."
    10. - by the Belgian Government in its memorial of 2nd October 1967:
      1. "Subsidiary, in case the Court should feel obliged to adopt the Commission's viewpoint, the Belgian State points out the legitimate grounds that justify the legislation attacked.
    11. The Belgian Government maintains however as its main argument the conclusions set down in its first memorial on the merits and reserves its final conclusions.
    12. The Government wishes to point out:
    13. - first of all, that the distinctions of which the Applicants complain do not affect the rights laid down in Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention, since the rights of parents and children with regard to education are defined not in that Article (art. 8) but in Article 2 of the Protocol (P1-2);
    14. - that these distinctions do not affect the negative right and the freedom laid down in Article 2 of the Protocol (P1-2) but relate to positive benefits and favours, which the State may, of course, grant in order to facilitate the exercise of that right and freedom but concerning which the High Contracting Parties have expressly declared that they did not intend to enter into any obligation;
    15. - that the distinctions in question do not interfere with any desire of the Applicants simply to have their children educated but concern their wish to have them educated in accordance with their linguistic preferences, and that any such preferences held in educational matters were deliberately not included by the High Contracting Parties in the enumeration of rights and freedoms safeguarded by the Convention;
    16. - that the rule of non-discrimination in Article 14 (art. 14) of the Convention cannot apply to the distinctions of which the Applicants complain, since it relates only to rights and freedoms laid down in the Convention;
    17. - 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).
    18. A fundamental change was made to this system by the Act of 14th July 1932 "on language regulations in primary and intermediate education".
      The Bill submitted by the then Government introduced the concept of territoriality, but left families of the minority in each region with a certain freedom of choice. The explanatory memorandum stressed that the maternal language should merit the same respect as religious or philosophical convictions.
      During the parliamentary debate, many members of the House of Representatives and Senators, and in particular Walloon representatives, showed a marked preference for a more "territorial" solution. The Bill was amended to that effect and approved by the House of Representatives by 81 votes to 12 with 63 abstentions, and by the Senate by 82 votes to 25 with 13 abstentions.
      The territorial principle was likewise established in the Act of 28th June 1932 "on the use of languages in administrative matters" and in the Act of 15th June 1932 "on the use of languages in judicial matters".
    19. The Act of 14th July 1932 was applicable to "nursery schools and municipal adopted or adoptable primary schools", to "establishments governed by the organic law on secondary education" (upper and lower secondary schools) and to "primary classes (preparatory sections) attached to secondary schools" (Sections 1, 8, 14 and 18).
      This law established a distinction between the regions considered to be unilingual and the areas recognised as bilingual.
      In the former, "the Flemish area", "the Walloon area" and "the German-speaking communes", the language of education was in principle that of the region (Sections 1, 8 and 14), while study of a second language (whether national or not) was compulsory only in secondary classes (Sections 3, 10, 11 and 16). This rule was, however, mitigated to a certain extent. Sections 2, 4, 15 and 17 provided that children whose maternal or usual language was not that of the region were entitled to receive their primary education in their own language. But the competent authorities remained the judges of the "reality of this need" and the "expediency of meeting it" by setting up "transmutation" classes; pupils enrolled in these classes were obliged to learn the language of the region from the second grade of primary schooling (third year) so that they would be able to derive profit, either from the fourth primary grade, or from technical or secondary education given in that language. Section 9 also provided that the "existing special language classes" in upper and lower secondary schools should be maintained for as long as they were attended by a sufficient number of pupils of three strictly defined categories.
    [/align]