Belgian Linguistic Case (No 2)
Article 14 prohibits a difference in treatment in the enjoyment of Convention rights only where it has no objective and reasonable justification, and the right to education does not include a right to be taught in a particular language.
Facts
Parents of French speaking children living in the Dutch speaking region of Belgium complained that Belgian legislation required education in state schools in that region to be provided in Dutch, and that the state did not provide or subsidise French language education there. Children living in certain communes on the outskirts of Brussels were also prevented from attending French language schools in other areas. They claimed that the legislation breached the right to education in article 2 of Protocol No 1, read with article 14.
Legal principle
The European Court of Human Rights held that there had been a violation in one respect only, concerning the rule which prevented certain children from attending French language schools in the Brussels suburbs because of their parents' place of residence. The court said that the right to education does not require states to provide education in a particular language, and that article 14 does not prohibit every difference in treatment, but only one which has no objective and reasonable justification, judged by whether it pursues a legitimate aim and whether there is a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised. The test has been applied in all later article 14 cases.
Related cases on discrimination, property, education and elections (article 14 and the Protocols)
- Ali v Head Teacher and Governors of Lord Grey School [2006] UKHL 14, [2006] 2 AC 363
- Burden v United Kingdom (2008) 47 EHRR 38
- DH v Czech Republic (2008) 47 EHRR 3
- Hirst v United Kingdom (No 2) (2006) 42 EHRR 41
- JA Pye (Oxford) Ltd v United Kingdom (2008) 46 EHRR 45
- James v United Kingdom (1986) 8 EHRR 123
- Mathieu-Mohin and Clerfayt v Belgium (1988) 10 EHRR 1
- Moohan v Lord Advocate [2014] UKSC 67, [2015] AC 901
Studying human rights law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
