CONCURRING OPINION OF JUDGE LEMMENS

1. I voted on all points with my colleagues. There are, however, some points upon which I have hesitated.

2. As far as the analysis of the complaint under Article 10 of the Convention is concerned, I note that the applicants did not complain about a violation of their right to freedom of expression. Rather, they complained under Article 7 of the Convention that they had been charged with an offence and subjected to criminal proceedings, despite the absence of any provision in domestic law criminalising their conduct (see paragraph 78 of the judgment). [1]

We are nevertheless examining the complaint under Article 10, on the basis of a reclassification of the initial complaint (see paragraph 79 of the judgment). I find such a reclassification disputable. A complaint relating to the contents of domestic criminal law is a priori not related to the fundamental right to express opinions, even if the charges are directed at the expression of an opinion.

What is more, while the applicants complained, under Article 7, only about the fact that the charges had no basis in domestic law, the judgment leaves open the corresponding question under Article 10 of whether the interference was “prescribed by law” (see paragraph 95 of the judgment). The precise complaint made by the applicants is thus left unanswered. Instead, the judgment finds a violation on the ground that the interference was not necessary in a democratic society (see paragraph 108 of the judgment). While the applicants complained about a purely legal issue (charges without a legal basis), the judgment examines whether, in the light of the concrete circumstances of the case, the action undertaken by the authorities could be considered proportionate to the aim pursued. This is, in my opinion, quite a different matter from that complained of.

However, the Government did not object to the reclassification, instead entering into a discussion, albeit a brief one, of the merits of the Article 10 complaint (see paragraph 84 of the judgment). For that reason, I joined my colleagues in the examination of that complaint. I should add that on the merits, I am in full agreement with the judgment.

3. With respect to the complaint under Article 14 of the Convention, we state that there is no need to give a separate ruling on the admissibility and the merits of that complaint (see paragraph 114 of the judgment).

In general, I would hesitate to concur with such a decision. An Article 14 complaint is intrinsically different in nature from a complaint under other Articles of the Convention: while the latter complaint is (only) about an interference with the applicant ’ s rights, the former is about the treatment given to the applicant in comparison with others. Moreover, I would not exclude that in a case relating to the treatment of a minority, the discrimination issue is in fact the heart of the matter (see, as regards the treatment of Roma in the area of education, D.H. and Others v. the Czech Republic [GC], no. 57325/00, ECHR 2007 ‑ IV; OrÅ¡uÅ¡ and Others v. Croatia [GC], no. 15766/03, ECHR 2010; and Horváth and Kiss v. Hungary , no. 11146/11, 29 January 2013).

This case, however, is exceptional in this respect. As indicated in the judgment, there have been in the meantime changes in the domestic law regarding the teaching of the Kurdish language (see paragraph 114 of the judgment). Taking this new development into account, which reduces the object of the present Article 14 complaint to one of historical importance only, and of course also in the light of our finding of a violation of Article 10 of the Convention, I agree with my colleagues that it is now unnecessary to examine the Article 14 complaint separately.