Parkov 4, 931 01 amorn, Slovakia Phone +421-31-590 27 90 Fax +421-31-560 27 12 E-mail: info@kerekasztal.org Web: www.kerekasztal.org, www.jogsegely.

sk

Comments of the Roundtable of Hungarians in Slovakia (RHS) on Thematic Commentary No. 3 The Language Rights of Persons Belonging to National Minorities under the Framework Convention
Roundtable of Hungarians in Slovakia Expert Committee of the Legal Aid Service Drafted by: Jnos Fiala amorn Somorja, 18 February 2012 Questions and comments are welcome on the address info@kerekasztal.org. The Roundtable of Hungarians in Slovakia (RHS) is an umbrella organization of 74 nongovernmental organizations active in the field of advocacy, culture, education, and linguistic rights of the Hungarian minority in Slovakia. The RHS represents the Hungarian communitys views vis--vis state bodies and the general public. It has recently developed and adopted its own proposals of laws on minority languages, financing of minority cultures, and minority selfgovernments. It also submitted comments on governmental proposals related to these areas. The RHS welcomes the Advisory Committees draft proposal of a thematic commentary on the language rights of national minorities under the Framework Convention. Language is one of the key bearers of national minorities identity, and therefore it should enjoy special interest and protection under the Framework Convention. The RHS considers language rights as one of the key issues for the survival of the Hungarian minority in Slovakia. The RHS notes that the Framework Convention is ratified by countries with a wide range of ethnic composition, history and policies towards minorities. Tiny and scattered minorities naturally face different obstacles, and have different needs and claims in the field of language rights than larger minorities, which constitute a numeric majority in large parts of the state they live in. These differences should also be reflected in the international standards relating to the use of minority languages. We do not believe that a compromise should be reached between smaller and larger minorities, in a sense that only those rights will be specified on the international level that can be enjoyed by all groups. Rather, as they have different needs and aspirations, international documents should reflect on the specific situation of each type of minorities. The RHS represents a community which is one of the largest in Europe in terms of its proportion on the overall population of the state. It is also highly concentrated, 80 per cent of its members live in municipalities where they constitute a majority. Our comments are therefore mostly relevant for large and concentrated minorities, and we would welcome if the thematic commentary recognized the situation of these types of minorities. In their case, administrative and financial difficulties do not justify the subordinated position of their language. This is rather

the result of state policies aimed at suppressing the minority language and its speakers, without any basis in an objective and reasonable need or difficulty on the states part. The RHS notes that the Framework Conventions aim is to ensure effective protection of national minorities and of the rights and freedoms of persons belonging to those minorities. In our opinion the interpretation of the Convention should reflect this aim. Our comments below relating to specific parts of the thematic commentary reflect this interpretative method, which is in line with the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties and the general practice of interpreting human rights conventions in a way which provides the most effective protection to its beneficiaries. The RHS welcomes the opportunity to be consulted by the Advisory Committee, and will be happy to provide clarification and answers to any questions. We are looking forward to serve the Advisory Committee with comments and submissions in the future. Specific comments to Thematic Commentary No. 3: Part IV: Language and media (Article 9) 1. Public sector media 45. As broadcasting in minority languages often requires supplementary efforts for translation and the development of adequate terminology, budget allocations for these programmes must be adjusted. RHS: We would welcome if the thematic commentary was more specific about budget allocations for broadcasting in minority languages. Such budget allocations should be based on clear criteria, which should have the force of law. Unless these conditions are met, it is a matter of constant political fights how much each minorities broadcasting will be allocated every year. It is not difficult to come up with a scheme which describes specifically how much each minority is entitled to from the overall budget allocated to public broadcasting. The size of different minorities can and should be taken into account by raising the allocation to smaller minorities above their proportion on the population. If this scheme is adopted, its implementation each year becomes automatic, and shields minority broadcasting from political fights, in which they are often not even represented. 2. Private sector media RHS: We would suggest that the thematic commentary addresses more specifically three issues related to private sector media. First, the comment should make clear that the placement of advertisements in minority languages should be free and not curtailed by the state. In Slovakia, private TV stations and newspapers were recently fined for placing advertisements in Hungarian, without Slovak subtitles or translation. It very much limits the opportunities of these media outlets to compete for advertisements if they have to reject those which are in fact aimed at their audience, namely members of the minority community. Second, the thematic commentary should make clear that if the state requires private media

broadcasting in a minority language to translate or subtitle its programmes to the state language, the cost of such translation should be born by the state. In Slovakia, broadcasters have to translate and subtitle everything on their own costs, which makes it almost impossible to broadcast live events and discussions, and also makes Hungarian programs very expensive. This has been a serious obstacle in establishing Hungarian radio stations and TV stations even in areas with clear Hungarian majority. Third, in many countries private sector media is subsidized from public funds. The thematic commentary should make clear that if this is the case, the amount of subsidies and the process for their allocation should be fixed by law. More precisely, law should have clear criteria on how much subsidy each minority is entitled to from the overall budget for subsidies, based on, for example, their proportion on the population. Smaller minorities could be and should be advantaged by the scheme. The respective amounts should be allocated by the representatives of the specific minorities, not by state bodies not having any particular knowledge about the cultural needs of minority communities. We consider it very important that the thematic commentary makes clear that this requirement should not apply only to subsidies from the national budget, but also the budgets of regional governments and local municipalities. Indeed, in Slovakia about only half of the subsidies are allocated nationally. Part V: Private and public use of languages 1. Personal names and patronyms RHS: It is a minor issue, but nevertheless important, that if the domestic legislation allows the change of name to its minority form, this should happen without unnecessary obstacles. Particularly, if there are any administrative costs involved, these should be the same for changing the name to and from the minority language. In Slovakia, changing ones name to Slovak is free, but the costs of changing it to Hungarian used to be very high. (Currently they are not that high, but could be raised again.) Also, if the legislation allows for the change of ones name, it should be possible for the person to get a certificate about the fact that his or her name was changed. Currently, there is no such certificate available in Slovakia. The persons name is changed in his birth certificate and national ID, therefore he has no document to show what his name had been before. However, many other documents, for example school certificates and diplomas, bank accounts and property deeds (ownership documents), still show the persons previous name. This causes many practical problems, which hinder persons from changing their names. It is especially important to overcome this problem in countries like Slovakia, where minority names were not allowed to be registered in the past, therefore almost the entire adult population has their name registered in Slovak. 2. Use of language in public, in the administration and within the judiciary 2.1 Use of minority languages in areas inhabited by persons belonging to national minorities in substantial numbers RHS: We consider it very important to clarify what is exactly the states duty in endeavouring to ensure (Article 10) that minority languages can be used in public administration. In Slovakia, the state merely allows the use of the minority language in certain circumstances. In other words, the state considers his duty to be a negative, non-intervening one. Needless to say, the effect of

this approach is that the use of minority languages is illusory in many municipalities, particularly of smaller minorities and especially of the Roma, who are under-represented in the public administration bodies. We are of the opinion that the thematic commentary should make clear that in certain defined situations the states role is indeed to ensure that public administration bodies employees are able to communicate in the minority language. In the sphere of oral communication, this could be achieved by language training, hiring of minority employees, monetary incentives to speakers of minority languages, and the use of translators. The latter is the most expensive and cumbersome measure, and it is also the least popular among minority speakers, therefore it should only be used exceptionally. In fact, reliance on interpreters is in some instances a mere excuse and a method of undermining the rights expressed in Article 10. Public administration bodies operating in municipalities with a substantial proportion of minorities should instead consciously assign speakers of minority languages to work on a rotating basis, so that there are always some on duty. In Slovakia, the new legislation on the use of minority languages allows public administration bodies to specify time-slots for serving customers in minority languages. The thematic commentary should make clear that this is not an acceptable policy under the Framework Convention. In the sphere of written communication, language training, language support and coordination are crucial. Many speakers of minority languages are not comfortable to express themselves in writing if they are unfamiliar with the legal and public administrative jargon, and this applies to public administration employees as well. It should be the duty of the state to translate the forms and documents used in public administration to minority languages, and prepare standard decisions and specialized dictionaries. Without these, it is unthinkable that a public document will ever be issued in a language such as Roma. It is equally important, and the thematic commentary should stress this, that all documents issued in minority languages shall have the same authority as those issued in official languages. Without this, the minority-language document is of no use to the minority-language speaker, and he would almost always prefer the one issued in the state language. Indeed, in Slovakia, it is very rare for written communication with the public authorities to be conducted in Hungarian, let alone in other languages, for the above mentioned reasons. The above comments also put a new light on a debate on thresholds and demands, stressed in the thematic commentary. Concerning the policy of simply allowing minority languages to be used, no threshold should be acceptable. There is no reason why the state should not allow (and therefore, arguing a contrario, prohibit) the use of a minority language even in areas which do not meet the Framework Conventions criteria. The criteria should apply only to the obligation of positive steps taken by the state to ensure that the minority language can effectively be used in public administration. Indeed, the state cannot be required to employ speakers of all minority languages in all public administration bodies. But it should not be allowed to prohibit the use of a minority language if a customer happens to interact with an employee speaking the same language. The above could be described by the absurd situation in Slovakia: the state set a 20 per cent threshold for allowing the use of Hungarian and other minority languages. This means that in communities meeting the criteria customers can speak Hungarian if they happen to meet a public official also speaking Hungarian. If they live in a municipality with a Hungarian majority where no Hungarian-speakers are employed in the municipal office (this extreme example is not typical

but nevertheless real, this is the case in the village of Blahov - Srrt), they have a right to speak Hungarian to the administration, but in fact no real opportunity to make use of it. In effect, their right is illusory in municipalities where they make less than approximately one third of the population. In municipalities below the 20 per cent threshold, the use of minority languages is not allowed, therefore prohibited in public administration. In municipalities like BratislavaPozsony, Koice-Kassa or Nitra-Nyitra, where Hungarians live in large numbers, they cannot speak Hungarian even to their relatives who happen to work in public administration bodies. From the above we would conclude that the most important is not how high the threshold is, but what in fact it relates to. The thematic commentary must clarify this question. RHS: We suggest that the thematic commentary should express that states should recognize minority languages as official languages in parts of their territory where minorities constitute a substantial part of the population. This would entail running the business of public bodies in the minority language, such as conducting administrative and court proceedings, portraying all official signs in the minority language, etc. RHS: We recommend that the thematic commentary specifies that the state should ensure the use of minority language in public services. Many services, such as public transportation and the provision of public utilities (water, heat, electricity) have an unclear status between public and private services. They are not private in the sense that they are often provided by monopolies or the public administration, but are not recognized as public sphere of the use of language. Therefore it is unclear whether minority languages can be used in relation to the providers of these services. For example, can a person in Slovakia buy a train ticket in Hungarian to a municipality which has an official Hungarian name? The law does not give an answer, therefore the result is often negative or it depends on who the customer deals with. Written communication with providers of public utilities (including the signing of contracts) is even more difficult. Since these are important arenas of the use of languages, which have both symbolic importance and due to these service providers size serve as models for other companies, we suggest that the thematic commentary explicitly lists them as an example of the public use of minority languages. RHS: Similarly to our previous comments, we consider it important that the thematic commentary lists healthcare- and social care services as examples of the public use of minority language where the state must ensure that the minority speakers can in fact use their language in these settings. RHS: Article 10.2 of the Framework Convention talks about administrative authorities, but the term is defined neither in the Convention nor in national laws. We suggest that the thematic commentary makes clear that police forces, fire services, and others are listed as part of the administrative authorities. 2.2. State language laws RHS: The thematic commentary should make clear that the scope of language use provisions should be equal to the state language and minority languages. In Slovakia, the State Language Act has a much wider coverage than the Act on the Use of Minority Languages. For example, the State Language Act mandates the use of Slovak in healthcare and social care establishments, in employment contracts, advertisements, etc. While these provisions are already an unnecessary interference with the private sphere, the situation is made worse by the fact that they are not counterbalanced by provisions on the use of minority languages in these areas.

Similarly, the thematic commentary should make clear that states should carefully design the relationship between the regulation on state language and minority languages. The former should clearly be designated as lex generalis, the latter lex specialis. Otherwise the different regimes can often conflict, which creates confusion as to what minority-language speakers are entitled to. 2.3 Right to be informed in a language one understands in criminal proceedings RHS: We have no comments on para. 66, we would just add that besides the specific right to use ones language in criminal proceedings expressed in Article 10.3, a general right to use minority languages in civil proceedings should be derived from Article 10.2. This should include the right to conduct proceedings (both civil and criminal) in the minority language, deliver decisions in the minority language, and recognize evidence (written documents and oral testimonies) submitted in the minority language. 3. Place names, street names and other topographical indications 3.1 Public signs RHS: We recommend that the thematic commentary makes clear that minority languages can be used not only on signs displaying the names of municipalities on roads entering and exiting the municipality, but on all signs displaying the name of the municipality publicly. This would include signs with the name of institutions based in those municipalities, road signs indicating directions to municipalities, train and bus schedules, etc. For example, in Slovakia a district court situated in Komrno should be called the Komrno Komrom District Court, a highway sign indicating directions should refer to Nov Zmky rsekjvr, etc. 3.2 Information of a private nature visible to the public RHS: Concerning para. 72, we suggest including media in the list of spheres where minority languages should appear freely. RHS: Concerning the use of signs on private establishments, such as shops, restaurants, banks, and other commercial entities, we suggest that the thematic commentary goes beyond its current scope. These are important spheres of the use of minority languages, without which the survival of minority communities is difficult to imagine. Therefore we suggest that the thematic commentary stresses that states take steps to ensure that minority languages in fact appear on public signs. This is especially important in circumstances where the state requires that inscriptions in the state language appear on all private signs, and where inscriptions in the minority language where suppressed in the past. In this situation, simply allowing that minority inscriptions can appear next to ones in the state language has the effect that practically no minority language inscriptions will in fact appear on public. Slovakia serves as an example. In the past, minority language inscriptions were prohibited. Currently, inscriptions in the state language are required, while those in a minority language are allowed. As a result, there are very few signs in Hungarian. In the town of Dunajsk StredaDunaszerdahely, where 80 per cent of the population is Hungarian, less than 20 per cent of the public signs of private establishments are bilingual, and 80 per cent are in Slovak only. In Nov

Zmky-rsekjvr, where 33 per cent of the population is Hungarian, there are almost no bilingual signs on private establishments, almost all are in Slovak. If the Framework Convention is to guarantee effective rights, this context should not be ignored. Simply allowing minority language signs has in some circumstances the same result as banning them: none will in fact appear. The state should take proactive measures, including subsidizing translation and requiring minority signs to be displayed. Part VI: Language and education RHS: The thematic commentary should make clear that school certificates, including high school and university diplomas, can be issued in minority languages. RHS: In schools where the language of instruction is a minority language, the state should not require educational materials and documentation to be kept in the official language. These include individual reports on the progress of pupils, class diaries, teacher notes, etc. These documents have internal purposes, are necessary for teachers to conduct the education process. Where the state, such as Slovakia, is requiring these to be kept bilingually, it is in fact prohibiting them to be kept in the minority language. As teachers need them mostly for internal purposes, and they need to prepare a Slovak version, they will not translate it for their own sake into Hungarian. There is no need for such a requirement, as in fact states have (or should have) inspectors speaking the minority language if they have schools teaching in the minority language. Para 81: A specific obstacle is represented by high school graduation or university entry exams provided in the State language only, since they may reduce the chances of persons belonging to national minorities gaining access to higher education and thereby negatively impact their subsequent professional opportunities. RHS: We would suggest using a much more affirmative formulation instead of the above one: States should ensure that high school graduation and university entry exams can be taken in minority languages, especially if these are recognized as languages of instruction in high schools.