Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-cx56b Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-20T20:34:51.905Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Case Relating to Certain Aspects of the Laws on the Use of Languages in Education in Belgium. (Preliminary Objection and Merits.)

European Court of Human Rights.  09 February 1967 ; 23 July 1968 .

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Get access

Abstract

States as international persons — In general — Sovereignty and independence — In matters of domestic jurisdiction — Reserved domain — Belgian legislation on use of languages in education — Whether within scope of application of European Convention on Human Rights — Whether subject to review by European Court of Human Rights.

Disputes — European Court of Human Rights — Jurisdiction Preliminary objections — Objection to competence of Court ratione materiae — Contention that subject — matter of complaint outside scope of European Convention on Human Rights and within reserved domain — Belgian legislation on use of languages in education — Whether applicability of Convention of a preliminary character — Whether pertaining to the merits.

The individual in international law — Human rights and freedoms — European Convention for Protection of — Articles 8 (right to respect for private and family life) and 14 (non-discrimination) — First Protocol (Article 2 (right to education)) — Belgian legislation on use of languages in education — Complaints by French-speaking inhabitants of Flemish-language region — Alleged failure of Belgian State to provide French-language education — Refusal to provide grants for institutions not complying with language legislation and to homologate leaving certificates issued — Whether compatible with Convention and Protocol — Whether within reserved domain — Meaning and scope of Article 2 of Protocol and Articles 8 and 14 of Convention — Whether conferring independent right — Whether operative in conjunction only with rights set out in other Articles — “Discrimination” — Criteria for interpretation — “Objective and reasonable justification” — “Proportionality between means employed and aim to be realized” — Limits to review by court — Subsidiary nature of international machinery of collective enforcement under Convention.

Type
Case Report
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 1972

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)