Onder 3.9 Parket bij de Hoge Raad 24 juni 2016

6. The second sentence of Article 2 of the Protocol (P1-2) does not guarantee a right to education; this is clearly shown by its wording (…) This provision does not require of States that they should, in the sphere of education or teaching, respect parents' linguistic preferences, but only their religious and philosophical convictions. To interpret the terms "religious" and "philosophical" as covering linguistic preferences would amount to a distortion of their ordinary and usual meaning and to read into the Convention something which is not there. Moreover the "preparatory work" confirms that the object of the second sentence of Article 2 (P1-2) was in no way to secure respect by the State of a right for parents to have education conducted in a language other than that of the country in question; indeed in June 1951 the Committee of Experts which had the task of drafting the Protocol set aside a proposal put forward in this sense. Several members of the Committee believed that it concerned an aspect of the problem of ethnic minorities and that it consequently fell outside the scope of the Convention (see Doc. CM (51) 33 final, page 3). The second sentence of Article 2 (P1-2) is therefore irrelevant to the problems raised in the present case. (…)

$ curl -s https://bron.page/api/v1/blobs/61e0eab8cfa25cd15df49c4d917b71c859719547dbcd9ae2afdb6646f9790f29 | shasum -a 256