90 "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 have to the Dutch-language schools in the six communes, poses no question of discrimination since they are only claiming to use the common law educational system and not, like the French-speaking parents living in the Dutch part of the country, the advantage of an exceptional system. It must therefore be concluded that the distinction in treatment attacked is in no way discriminatory. III. The applications must, as regards the second limb of the fifth question, be rejected by the application of the principles governing the theory of the proportionality, the appreciation of the factual and legal features and the subsidiary character of the Court’s mission In that part of the judgment devoted to the general interpretation adopted by the Court, it is stated as a principle that Article 14 (art. 14) of the Convention is violated only when it is clearly established that no relationship of proportionality exists between the means employed and the aim sought to be realised. It would not therefore be enough - supposing that such were the position - to be confronted with a marginal case, to conclude that there is a violation of human rights in the case of the Applicants. The differentiation in treatment is not discriminatory and it has not in any way been established that the relationship of proportionality has been disregarded. The common law legislation which governs all the communes in the Dutch-language region applies to French-speaking persons resident in the Dutch unilingual communes adjacent to the six communes, and in its reply to the first question the Court stated why this legislation is contrary neither to Article 2 of the Protocol (P1-2), nor to Article 8 (art. 8) of the Convention, taken in isolation or in conjunction with Article 14 (art. 14+P12, art. 14+8). The difficulties invoked by the Applicants concern the distance from the parents’ place of residence of French-language schools which, unlike the schools in the six communes, are open to French-speaking children in the Dutch unilingual region. It is a fact that these difficulties are clearly less for parents who, like the Applicants, live in the localities belonging to the Dutch unilingual system adjacent to the communes "with special facilities" of the Brussels agglomeration, than the difficulties caused to French-speaking parents who, in Dutch unilingual territory, live further or may live much further from the nearest French-language school open to their children. Now, the Court has found that as regards these last-mentioned parents, "the measures adopted in this matter by the Belgian legislature are not so disproportionate to the requirements of the public interest which is being