Onder 3.11 Parket bij de Hoge Raad 24 juni 2016

The Court points out that a right to education in a particular language or a right to obtain from the State the creation of a particular kind of educational establishment cannot be derived from Article 2 of Protocol No. 1. 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 Court recalls that the “drafting history of that Article” confirms that the object of the second sentence of Article 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 1951 the Committee which drafted Protocol No. 1 to the Convention set aside a proposal put forward in this sense, several of its members having believed that it concerned an aspect of the problem of ethnic minorities and that it thus fell outside the scope of the Convention (see the above-cited judgment in the “Belgian Linguistic Case”, p. 32, § 6).(…)”

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