DISSENTING OPINION OF JUDGE VALTICOS

In the present case there are certainly many criticisms that can be made of Greek legislation, the Greek administrative and governmental aut horities and the Greek courts. However, account must also be taken of the time element, more recent measures and the applicants ’ conduct.

There was incontestably a failure to bring legislation into line with the legal order of the European Communities, or in any even t a lengthy delay in doing so. In addition - and this was not the first case of the kind - a long period of time elapsed before the applicants received any reply f rom the Minister of Education. And when, more than ten years after their initial applications, Presidential Decree no. 211/1994, published on 10 August 1994, finally gave the nationals of member States of the European Community the right to set up frontistiria (private schools in Greece), it was on condition, for those who did not have a Greek secondary school-leaving certificate, that they pass an examination in Greek language and history. Even on that point, while it is quite easy to understand the need to ensure that those concerned have an adequate knowledge of Greek, one might wonder why a knowledge of Greek history should be necessary for those who wish to teach foreign languages, and this requirement is certainly open to criticism.

Th at, however, is not the issue. The issue is simpler, as matters stand at present. The applicants lodged a complaint which was originally, without a doubt, well-founded. After an admittedly excessive delay the Government brought Greek legislation into line with European law - for the most part, at least - and the violation was remed ied, though tardily, I repeat. The applicants were then twice asked to take an examination (see paragraph 22, 3rd sub-paragraph, of the judgment), which, on the whole, may be rega rded as a reasonable condition. They did not do so and seem to have abandoned their application for authorisation to open a school, preferring the prospect of substantial compensation to a gamble on their results in such an examination. The essential role of the Court is to ensure the application of the Convention ’ s provisions and to impel the C ontracting States to apply it. It is not to condemn retrospectively violations for which redress has been afforded. At the time of delivery of the present judgment it appears, firstly, that the impugned legislation has been brought into conformity with the Convention, on the whole, and secondly that the applicants are no longer pursuing their application to open a school. It is regrettable that this important information was not given in paragraph 45 of the judgment.

In any case, after the - admittedly tardy - measures taken by the Government, it cannot be said that there is, at the present time, a violation of the Convention, as the Court seems to have decided.

[1] The case is numbered 107/1995/613/701. The first number is the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court in the relevant year (second number). The last two numbers indicate the case's position on the list of cases referred to the Court since its creation and on the list of the corresponding originating applications to the Commission.

[2] Rules A apply to all cases referred to the Court before the entry into force of Protocol No. 9 (P9) (1 October 1994) and thereafter only to cases concerning States no t bound by that Protocol (P9). They correspond to the Rules that came into force on 1 January 1983, as amended several times subsequently.

[3] Note by the Registrar: f or practical reasons this annex will appear only with the printed version of the judgment (in Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1997-II), but a copy of the Commission's report is obtainable from the registry.