"RELATING TO CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE LAWS ON THE USE OF LANGUAGES 91 IN EDUCATION IN BELGIUM" v. BELGIUM (MERITS) JUDGMENT COLLECTIVE DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES HOLMBÄCK, RODENBOURG, ROSS, WIARDA AND MAST pursued as to constitute a discrimination contrary to Article 14 of the Convention read in conjunction with the first sentence of Article 2 of the Protocol (art. 14+P1-2) or with Article 8 (art. 14+8) of the Convention". Even more so, the principle of proportionality has not been violated with respect to the Applicants who live in the localities adjacent to the communes with special facilities. To consider, for the reasons which have been refuted under II above, that those objective limits imposed by the Belgian legislator on the exception which he has allowed to the principle of territoriality are arbitrary, amounts to contesting his right to decide, regard being had to the factual and legal features characterising the present situation in Belgium, the scope of the derogation which - without being bound so to do - he has considered himself able to make from a more severe common law system, a system which the Court has recognised as not being contrary to the Convention. In so doing the Court has lost "sight of the subsidiary nature of the international machinery of collective enforcement established by the Convention". This is why, for all the reasons stated above, in the opinion of those holding this dissenting opinion, the Applications should have been rejected as regards the second limb of the fifth question.