"RELATING TO CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE LAWS ON THE USE OF LANGUAGES 97 IN EDUCATION IN BELGIUM" v. BELGIUM (MERITS) JUDGMENT INDIVIDUAL OPINION, PARTLY DISSENTING (POINT I OF THE OPERATIVE PROVISIONS OF THE JUDGMENT), OF JUDGE G. MARIDAKIS 18) each Contracting State may, for reasons of the public interest, take the measures "necessary in a democratic society" to protect that interest as it appears from the circumstances of the case; but it may do so only to the extent that, while protecting the public interest, the State does not repudiate or appreciably limit its obligations, as laid down in the Convention, to respect the human rights safeguarded by the Convention. In the present case the Belgian legislation, considered as a whole and in the light of its intention, has the specific object of restoring to the Belgian nation the calm and order so deeply disturbed by the language question. Thus if, in order to achieve this object of the public interest, the Belgian legislative power thought that the measures necessary in a democratic society meant the denial of homologation, the abolition of grants, etc., those measures, being in accordance with the intention behind the legislation taken as a whole, do not conflict with the intention behind the Convention taken as a whole and thus involve no "discrimination" contrary to the Convention. It follows from the foregoing considerations that the restrictions mentioned under No. 3 above involve no "discrimination" between Frenchspeaking and Dutch-speaking persons as understood and prohibited by Article 14 (art. 14).