"RELATING TO CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE LAWS ON THE USE OF LANGUAGES 89 IN EDUCATION IN BELGIUM" v. BELGIUM (MERITS) JUDGMENT COLLECTIVE DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGES HOLMBÄCK, RODENBOURG, ROSS, WIARDA AND MAST respects treated differently from those who do fulfil them (because they do live in that territory), in no way therefore constitutes a discrimination. Article 14 (art. 14) is furthermore not violated because the residence condition only applies with respect to one of the two linguistic groups. It is true that "the Dutch-speaking children resident in the French unilingual region, which incidentally is very near, have access to Dutchlanguage schools in the six communes, whereas French-speaking children living in the Dutch unilingual region are refused access to French-language schools in those same communes", but this difference in treatment is not arbitrary. It is justified on objective grounds. Firstly, by the legitimate aim which the legislator has pursued, to wit, to ensure the linguistic homogeneity of the communities. Furthermore, and above all, it is justified because the Dutch-language schools are, in the six communes, the common law schools and because in the two regions, the characteristic of common law schools is that they are open to all. Lastly, in establishing in Flemish territory French-language schools which depend on an exceptional system, the legislator has left unchanged the common law system of Dutch-language schools in Flemish territory. Thus, the difference in treatment which is wrongly denounced as a discrimination is the inevitable consequence of the fact that the legislator as was his right - intended to limit the effects of the exception which he permitted to the principle of territoriality only to the children of families whose head lives in the communes "with special facilities", and the limits to common law were permitted on the basis of this paramount objective factor, which the residence of the head of the family constitutes. Consequently it is evident that only the conditions of access to Frenchlanguage schools allowed in these communes are of importance. That Dutch-speaking children from the Dutch unilingual region are granted access to the Dutch-language classes in the six communes is irrelevant, for the attendance of Dutch-speaking children at schools which provide an education in Dutch does not affect the extent of the exception made to the principle that Dutch is, under common law, the language of instruction in the communes "with special facilities". Besides, the theoretical character of the factors on which the alleged discrimination is based may be pointed out. No reason of a linguistic nature can impel Dutch-speaking parents living in the Dutch-language part of the country, or French-speaking parents living in the French part of the country, to send their children to Dutch or French language schools in the six communes since they find the school of the linguistic system of their choice on the spot. As for the Dutch-speaking parents living in the communes under the French system near to the linguistic frontier, the access which their children