"RELATING TO CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE LAWS ON THE USE OF LANGUAGES 85 IN EDUCATION IN BELGIUM" v. BELGIUM (MERITS) JUDGMENT COLLECTIVE DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES HOLMBÄCK, RODENBOURG, ROSS, WIARDA AND MAST COLLECTIVE DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES HOLMBÄCK, RODENBOURG, ROSS, WIARDA AND MAST (Point I of the operative provisions of the judgment) (Translation) The legal and administrative measures governing access to the education given in French in the six communes "with special facilities", are not incompatible with the first sentence of Article 2 of the Protocol read in conjunction with Article 14 (art. 14+P1-2) of the Convention. This opinion follows from a logical application of the principles formulated by the Court, in particular, in the general part of the judgment (interpretation adopted by the Court), and in the reasons for the decision reached by it concerning the first question. Those holding the present opinion consider that the reply which the Court, by a majority of one, has given to the second limb of the fifth question is difficult to reconcile with a rational interpretation of these principles. The general part of the judgment states the following principles: "... Article 14 (art. 14) (of the Convention) does not forbid every difference in treatment in the exercise of the rights and freedoms recognised ... One would, in effect, be led to judge as contrary to the Convention every one of the many legal or administrative provisions which do not secure to everyone complete equality of treatment in the enjoyment of the rights and freedoms recognised. The competent national authorities are frequently confronted with situations and problems which, on account of differences inherent therein, call for different legal solutions; however certain legal inequalities tend only to correct factual inequalities". The judgment holds that the effect of Article 14 read in conjunction with Article 2 (art. 14+P1-2) is not to guarantee to children or their parents the right to education conducted in the language of their choice since, where the Contracting Parties wished to secure to everyone within their jurisdiction, specific rights in the field of the use of a language or of its understanding, they made this clear in the text, as in Articles 5 (2) and 6 (3) (a) (art. 5-2, art. 6-3-a) of the Convention. The judgment then states, in its general part, when the distinction in treatment is contrary to Article 14 (art. 14). It lays down the following rules: (1) The distinction must pursue a legitimate aim. (2) The distinction may not lack an "objective justification". (3) Article 14 (art. 14) is violated when it "is clearly established" that there is no reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised.