86 "RELATING TO CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE LAWS ON THE USE OF LANGUAGES IN EDUCATION IN BELGIUM" v. BELGIUM (MERITS) JUDGMENT COLLECTIVE DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES HOLMBÄCK, RODENBOURG, ROSS, WIARDA AND MAST (4) The existence of this reasonable relationship must be appreciated in the knowledge of the "legal and factual features which characterise the life of the society in the State which is to answer for the measure in dispute". (5) The Court cannot, in the exercise of this power of appreciation, "assume the role of the competent national authorities, for it would thereby lose sight of the subsidiary nature of the international machinery of collective enforcement established by the Convention". It follows from this that "the national authorities remain free to choose the measures which they consider appropriate in those matters which are governed by the Convention" and that "review by the Court concerns only the conformity of these measures with the requirements of the Convention". Those holding the dissenting opinion here stated do not contest the wellfoundedness of these five principles, but they consider that there is a discrepancy between the legal premises established by the Court and the reply given to the second limb of the fifth question. They consider: I. That the distinction in treatment attacked pursues a legitimate aim; II. That the measures attacked are based on objective features which justify them; III. That the absence of a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised is not established and certainly is not clearly established; that with regard to the reply given to the second limb of the fifth question, the judgment has not sufficiently taken account of the rule according to which the national authorities, who are in the first place those who must appreciate the requirements implied by the factual and legal features in issue, remain free to choose the measures which they consider appropriate in those matters which are governed by the Convention. I. The distinction in treatment attacked pursues a legitimate aim In excluding from the benefit of education given in French the children whose parents live in the Dutch unilingual region near the communes "with special facilities", the legislator was anxious to ensure the linguistic homogeneity of the two communities which would, in his view, be threatened by an extension of an exceptional system beyond the territory of the six communes. The conception of the Acts of 30th July and 2nd August 1963, which were voted by a very large majority of Fleming, Walloon and Brussels parliamentarians, was that this homogeneity is the very condition of a lasting accord between the communities. This way of looking at things is open to discussion and was discussed at great length in the Belgian Parliament, but there is no reason to believe that