64 CATAN AND OTHERS v. MOLDOVA AND RUSSIA JUDGMENT – SEPARATE OPINIONS and purpose” (Article 31 “General rule of interpretation”). In my view, the Court should not examine the complaint under Article 2 of Protocol No. 1 on the merits because this complaint goes well beyond the ordinary meaning given to the right to education. However, the Court follows a slippery slope proposed by the applicants: “education should be directed to the ‘full development of the human personality’” (see paragraph 125 of the judgment). In its examination of this application, the Court seeks to develop its case-law on Article 2 of Protocol No. 1... while refraining, by a majority, from replacing the problem within the context of the provisions of Article 8. The magic wand consisting in an “evolutive interpretation” of the Convention is applied only to Article 2 of Protocol No. 1, giving it a meaning hitherto unseen... The task that the Court sets itself at the beginning of its analysis of the context of this Article (see paragraph 136 of the judgment) conflicts with the ratione materiae criterion. I fear that, in taking this approach, the Court is setting a bad example of what is called “judicial activism”. In my view, the case is too sensitive to be used as a trial ground for judicial activism. This activism is also apparent, alas, in the application of Article 41 of the Convention. What I find particularly shocking is the “egalitarian” approach: children aged six at the time of the events (born in 1997 or 1998) are placed on an equal footing with secondary-school pupils, and parents of schoolchildren with parents who have not included their children in their application. In the fairly recent judgment in the case of Ponomaryovi v. Bulgaria (no. 5335/05, § 56, ECHR 2011), the Court awarded each of the applicants EUR 2,000 on account of the violation of Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1. In Oršuš and Others v. Croatia ([GC], no. 15766/03, ECHR 2010), which concerns the education of Roma children, it awarded each applicant, for several violations, among which was Article 2 of Protocol No. 1, EUR 4,500, and in Sampanis and Others v. Greece (no. 32526/05, 5 June 2008) it awarded each applicant EUR 6,000 on account of the greater seriousness of the violation (Article 13 and Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 2 of Protocol No. 1). In the present case, however, a far more generous award is made in respect of a single violation. This observation also concerns the costs and expenses: EUR 10,000 in Oršuš and EUR 50,000 in the present case, whereas these are both Grand Chamber cases... The principle “it’s not my money” is irrelevant because it is the taxpayer’s money of a member State of the Council of Europe. It is in the light of all the foregoing considerations that I am unable to subscribe to the majority view regarding certain points that I consider to be of major importance.