Spain’s Multinational Constitution: a Lost Opportunity?

Antoni Abad i Ninet & Adrià Rodés Mateu*

Introduction the need for unity in the Spanish state with the claims of di%erent historic nationalities for po- #e Spanish Constitution of 1978 provid- litical autonomy. #e SC opted for an underde- ed an opportunity for minority nationalities &ned formula made up of two elements. First, within to achieve a degree of political au- the Spanish state would be founded on the ba- tonomy not shared by others within the state. sis of the unity and singularity of the Spanish During the constituent process, the non-Span- nation, with a unitary Constitution and judi- ish speaking national communities of cial system. Second, the Spanish Constitution and the Basque Country were the only political would recognize and be able to accommodate entities demanding political autonomy to ac- a right to political autonomy for the nationali- commodate their national identities in the new ties and regions making up the Spanish state.1 Constitution. Today, a$er thirty years of demo- #is open, 'exible model designed by the SC cratic and constitutional development, we can emerged as the result of the need for political see that the possibilities o%ered by the Spanish consensus, and as an essential means for the po- Constitution to recognize and accommodate litical and institutional recognition of historic the multinational character of the Spanish state nationalities in Spain.2 have been lost. #is article examines causes of this failure to take advantage of the possibilities A deliberate vagueness in the constitutional provided by the Spanish Constitution to pro- text with respect to the organization of subunit vide for asymmetrical political autonomy for governments within the state was another ve- minority nationalities. hicle of consensus among the di%erent politi- cal forces represented in the SC. Consequently, the Constitution did not establish a &xed model !e Spanish Constitution and of federal or regional-territorial organization; the Model of Autonomous it did not de&ne the territorial map of the na- tionalities and regions; and it did not create au- Communities tonomous communities, &x their organization, A$er forty years of fascist dictatorship, and determine their powers, or provide them with at a delicate moment in the modern history of speci&c jurisdiction. Rather, the creation of the the Spanish state, the Spanish Constitution of Spanish state model emerged postconstitution- 1978 (SC) emerged as the juridi&cation of the ally as a gradual and complex — and as yet un- transition to a new democracy in Spain. Dur- &nished — process. ing the constituent process, divergent political Although the Spanish Constitution does forces were aware that for an acceptable consti- not formally establish or refer to “autonomous tutional formula to be found, any new model of communities,” it does refer to territorial entities territorial organization would have to balance

Constitutional Forum constitutionnel !" that, in the Spanish constitutional order, are autonomous community, and is thus integrated gi$ed with legislative autonomy and executive into the Spanish juridical system. As part of the jurisdiction (including administration through constitutional block, a statute of autonomy thus their own representatives). In other words, the forms the basic institutional regulations of the SC establishes some general rules concern- community, regulating its own institutions, and ing who can gain autonomy and how they can the powers it assumes in relation to the state. achieve it, but leaves these general rules with- out resolution or speci&cation. Spain therefore Once a community has asserted the will does not have an o)cial or constitutionalized to achieve political autonomy, it can do so via name for its state model; nevertheless, doctrine the appropriate access route. #e SC establishes referring to the Spanish state frequently uses di%erent routes for communities to achieve au- 7 terms such as: “autonomic” model, model “of tonomy. If the statute of autonomy is drawn up autonomy,” or model of the “autonomous com- by the general route (article 146), the autono- munities.” mous community can assume only the powers listed in article 148, and must wait &ve years Autonomous communities within the Span- from the approval of the statute to extend them. ish state include regions as well as nationalities.3 By contrast, if the statute is drawn up using the #ese communities are preconstitutional in that procedure identi&ed in article 151 (and in the the processes through which they gain a degree Constitution’s transitional provisions), the au- of autonomy were developed before the Consti- tonomous community can immediately assume tution came into force. #ey are also subconsti- the powers it wants, except those reserved for tutional, in that the speci&cation of the model the Spanish state (article 149.1). #e result is a of autonomous communities took place — and distinction between “slow” and “fast” track au- still continues — via a set of rules and decisions tonomous communities. not found in the Constitution but rather below it, in the constitutional block.4 #e SC therefore facilitates the creation of a 'exible state model, structuring Spain as an au- #e SC speci&es the procedure for drawing tonomic, multinational state. #e Constitution up the basic institutional rules for a future au- was designed to be an eclectic model that, from tonomous community; this procedure culmi- every angle, aims to establish a composite, po- nates in the passage of a statute of autonomy.5 litically decentralized state. Although not a fed- It is this statute and not the SC that determines eral state, it does theoretically have some char- the powers of each autonomous community. #e acteristics similar to federal political systems. statutes of autonomy provide the rules by which For this reason, Spanish constitutional doctrine the autonomous communities govern and legis- has frequently evolved on the basis of precon- late. #at is, they provide the rules allowing the ceptions about the character of the decentral- nationalities and the regions to access self-gov- ized model of the autonomous communities, ernment and to legally constitute themselves as placing that model in line with quasi-federal, autonomous communities as conceived in the federal-regional, unitary-federal, dualist fed- SC (article 2). #ese statutes specify the system eral, or cooperative models of federalism. For of institutions and powers for the autonomous a large majority, the Spanish model of autono- communities, within the scope of the openness mous communities is conceived of as a hetero- and 'exibility set out by the Constitution. #us geneous combination of federal-regional and autonomous communities are permitted a mar- unitary principles. gin of di%erentiation with respect to the various legal provisions addressing the content of au- Despite the fact that the SC shares a com- tonomy. #e result is potentially an element of mon element with federations — decentraliza- both uniformity and heterogeneity in the sys- tion designed for all rather than some of the tem as a whole.6 A statute of autonomy, adopt- territorial subunits — the model of autono- ing the form of special organic state law, also mous communities corresponds closest to a 8 becomes the basic institutional norm for each decentralized regional-state model. Indeed, the principle, though an unwritten

!( Volume 17, Number 1, 2008 principle of the SC, guides the whole process of Galicia within the state of autonomous commu- community autonomy (together with the con- nities) has been diluted beyond recognition. In- stitutional principles of unity and autonomy). deed the potential for asymmetry in the devolu- Territorial communities seeking to achieve au- tion of powers to the autonomous communities tonomy regulate all decisive issues concerning has been reduced, and the extent of communi- the territorial organization of the power of the ties’ political autonomy is notably less than that state not regulated by the Constitution itself. which could have obtained under the SC. Because of the devolution principle, the model of autonomous communities shows notable po- In observing the development of the model tential for asymmetry,9 allowing di%erent solu- of autonomous communities, it must be stated tions for very diverse territories and di%erent that the degree of autonomy of the historic au- degrees of political will. tonomous communities is low. Leaving aside possible de&ciencies in the Constitution and the statutes of autonomy, the reason for this limita- !e Current Status of Autonomous tion is found in the interpretation and practical Communities Within the application of this autonomy. In e%ect, political autonomy has been transformed into an essen- Constitutional Framework tially administrative autonomy, with a corre- Currently, there are nineteen statutes of sponding loss of capacity for political decision autonomy in Spain, implementing political au- making by the autonomous communities. tonomy of varying degree for seventeen autono- Di%erent mechanisms have been used by mous communities (Basque Country, Catalo- the central state to expand its own powers. nia, Andalusia, Galícia, País Valencià, Navarra, Cantabria, Astúrias, Múrcia, La Rioja Aragón, Distribution of Powers Castilla la Mancha, Canary Islands, Extremad- ura, Balearic Islands, Madrid, Castilla León), #e system for distributing legislative and and two autonomous cities in North Africa executive powers — identi&ed in the Constitu- (Ceuta and Melilla).10 #e sum of these terri- tion and the statutes of autonomy — is based on tories, currently provided with constitutionally the Spanish state determining basic standards guaranteed political autonomy, is equivalent to or “bases” binding for all. Statutes of autonomy the whole territory of Spain.11 are the means through which these common bases have been developed by the central state, In the long run, it has not been possible to with the result being that autonomous com- resolve the latent problem of &tting the historic munities law has been used to constrain the au- nationalities into the Spanish state. #e practi- tonomy of the parliaments of the autonomous cal development of the model of autonomous communities. Indeed, the indeterminate nature communities has revealed limitations in achiev- of the notion of basic standards in the Constitu- ing the SC’s main objective: political accommo- tion has made it easy for the state to classify any dation of a multinational society, particularly legislative, regulatory, or executive activity it with respect to the political recognition of the considers relevant as “basic,” considerably lim- historic nationalities in a single Constitution.12 iting the scope of the autonomous powers of the #ese limitations stem from the political elabo- autonomous communities.14 ration of the model of autonomous communi- ties, which has made poor use of the possibilities Expanded state powers have also developed o%ered by the SC for accommodating multina- by so-called horizontal state rights, which are tionality in the Spanish state.13 #e constitution- particularly important in the economic sphere,15 al recognition of this multinationality has not or by the &xing of basic conditions for the ex- materialized, and the initial distinction made ercise of public rights. #ird, article 149.1.1 of by the SC between nationalities and regions (a the SC, which attributes to the Spanish state the mechanism designed to recognize the di%erent power to regulate basic conditions guaranteeing positions of Catalonia, the Basque Country, and the equality of all Spaniards, has been used er-

Constitutional Forum constitutionnel !* ratically and expansively. Its normal interpreta- For example, although the current statute of tion includes all public activities necessary to autonomy in Catalonia attributes to the Catalan ensure uniform treatment of citizens’ rights and government exclusive powers over housing — duties. and the same is true of other autonomous com- munities — this area has been a%ected by up to In addition, the state’s recovery of powers seven subsidiary areas over which the Spanish that were initially assigned to the autonomous state has power (civil legislation, commercial communities has been achieved through more legislation, bases of health, transport and com- subtle means. For instance, the central state munications, telecommunications, bases of en- has laid claim to jurisdiction over autonomous vironmental matters, legislation on compulsory community law or policy with extraterritorial purchase). On this basis, the state has adopted scope. As soon as a matter coming within the speci&c measures concerning housing; approved powers of an autonomous community reaches action plans and programs; dictated laws; and, beyond that community’s territorial boundar- &nally, created a ministry. #is means the Cata- ies, the state takes over the matter, claiming the lan government’s capacity to create policy on a supracommunity nature of the subject being matter of great social importance is, as a general regulated. Rather than establish a formula for rule, reduced to the rather unglamorous and joint action among a%ected autonomous com- less far-reaching role of putting state policies munities, the state simply assumes a general in- into practice, frequently in interstitial and o$en terest in the matter and takes it over. residual areas. Ultimately, the majority of the laws made Furthermore, because the Spanish state is by the autonomous communities has subsid- the result of an act of sovereignty of a single con- iary, organizational, or procedural content; stituent subject — the Spanish nation — which only a minority has signi&cant policy content. is the sole holder of national sovereignty, only #e development of these laws o$en amounts the state and its representatives have “constitut- to a more-or-less literal reproduction of higher- ed constituent power” to reform the Constitu- ranking state laws. tion. #erefore, the autonomous communities Political Capacity and Reform cannot take part in the process of constitutional reform, and their only chance to participate is Another important indicator of the inad- reduced to the phase of the legislative initiation equacy of community autonomy under the of the reform. Spanish Constitution is the limited capacity of autonomous community bodies to adopt their State Participation and Representation 16 own policies in discrete, coherent areas. Cen- It must be stressed that in the current Span- tral state intervention has prevented the auton- ish state there are no e%ective and stable pro- omous communities from developing policies cedures — whether bilateral or multilateral in their own areas of jurisdiction. But even in — for participation or collaboration among the areas where an autonomous community has di%erent levels of government (the autonomous exclusive powers, the central state maintains communities and central state institutions) to de facto rights of intervention in certain cases. determine joint policies. #e autonomous #ere are no matters, not even those reserved communities do not take part in appointments for the exclusive jurisdiction of an autonomous to state institutions such as the Constitutional community, where the state has not &xed policy Court (which has among its functions the directives to be followed, o$en with an extraor- resolution of con'icts of jurisdiction between dinary degree of detail. Likewise, there is no state and autonomous community authori- matter of jurisdiction within an autonomous ties), or the general judicial authority. #ere community that, from the point of view of so- is no legislative chamber within the system cial reality, has not been legally fragmented to of state institutions in which the autonomous permit state intervention. communities are represented or permitted to codetermine law and policy. Indeed, the auton-

+, Volume 17, Number 1, 2008 omous communities hold a clearly subordinate international and domestic sphere. As a result, position with respect to the Congress, and they there are no mechanisms to provide for autono- do not have su)cient power to properly defend mous community participation in the &eld of their territorial interests. Moreover, Senate rep- relations with the European Union (EU). In the resentation is not linked to the autonomous sphere of the EU, the autonomous communities communities, as the majority of senators are are therefore not considered political agents of elected by provinces. Nor does the Senate func- the Spanish state. #is gap is particularly se- tion as a mechanism to decentralize jurisdic- rious because the EU exercises many powers tion, or facilitate autonomous community par- that are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the ticipation in state decision making.17 autonomous communities. In direct contrast, the Länder of the Federal Republic of Germany Until recently, there has been a lack of po- have the power to act directly before EU bodies litical will to devise suitable intergovernmental if a matter over which they have exclusive pow- mechanisms for participation, coordination, er is a%ected. #e Spanish state has not even and cooperation between the central state and &rmly upheld the linguistic rights of Catalan autonomous communities to put into practice or Basque in European institutions or the state common policies which must be jointly de&ned Parliament.19 (particularly those with extraterritorial e%ect). #ere has been a similar lack of political will to Taxation defend the power of the historic autonomous communities to develop their own policies in Almost all taxes are established and col- their own way in areas where they have exclu- lected by the central state, with the exception of sive jurisdiction, and where they should enjoy the Basque Country and Navarre, which have full political decision-making autonomy. asymmetrical taxation agreements with the central authority based on preconstitutional Self-Government “historical rights.” It must be stated that the is- sue of &nance is a site of contestation for Cata- Another factor constraining the political lonia, for example, which has not had a &nance autonomy of autonomous communities is the system to match its tax capacity and political lack of a constitutional guarantee of self-gov- autonomy. As a result of this taxation system, ernment in the Spanish Constitution. A guar- some autonomous communities lack the &nan- antee of self-government generally ensures that cial capacity to carry out their own policies. the powers attributed to politically decentral- ized bodies is consecrated in a constitution. In Ultimately, these features of the develop- Spain, this constitutional guarantee is diluted ment of the autonomous communities under by the fact that the criteria for the distribution the SC reveal that the process has not led to the of powers between the state and the autonomous establishment of a viable multinational state. In communities — as de&ned by the Constitution practice, only national claims that are compat- and the statutes of autonomy — are generic, ible with the national will as expressed in the indeterminate, and have signi&cant gaps. #e Constitution are acted upon. Of course, the distribution of powers remains at the mercy of majority of those who live in the Spanish state state legislators who have occupied those gaps, — whether by goodwill or force — respect the especially by means of setting basic standards. SC because it is the basic legal regulation that controls everyone’s lives. However, Catalan, When an autonomous community ac- Basque, or Galician nationalists, for example, cepts a statute of autonomy, the SC provides no cannot be asked to consider the SC as their own, mechanism to facilitate the constitutional rec- because it has not given rise to a multinational 18 ognition of that community as a nation. #is system. To expect as much would be like ask- omission deprives those autonomous commu- ing these nationalists to renounce their national nities with boundaries potentially correspond- convictions and adopt the point of view of the ing to the historical nationalities of the capacity Spanish nation; it is equivalent to asking them to speak as a nation, which is de&nitive in the to become national turncoats, so to speak. Of

Constitutional Forum constitutionnel +! course, they cannot be asked to do this, par- By way of example of the restrictiveness of ticularly not in name of freedom, respect, and the symmetrical reading of the SC of 1978, and democracy. its e%ect on Spanish state policy, one might point to the nonacceptance of the term “nation” in the Basque and Catalan dra$ statutes of autonomy !e Consequences of (approved by the parliaments of these nations Homogenization: Reforms to the but not accepted by the Parliament of the Span- Statutes of Autonomy ish state), and the rejection of the possibility of a federation between the Basque Autonomous A$er the SC’s thirty-odd years in force, it is Community and the Autonomous Community undeniable that the initial conception of consti- of Navarre (explicitly recognized in the Span- tutional 'exibility underlying the right to com- ish constitution in its fourth transitional provi- munity political autonomy and the devolution sion). principle, has not resulted in self-government for autonomous communities; rather, the law #e avenues available to improve or over- and policy made by one autonomous communi- come this situation are diverse. Changes should ty is generally indistinguishable from that made address in particular the autonomous commu- by the others. #e state of autonomous commu- nities’ lack of capacity to establish and develop nities began with an initially open-ended and their own policies; the lack of capacity for self- “di%erentiated” interpretation, consecrating organization in a broad sense (institutional de- unique autonomous communities for Catalo- velopment, territorial organization, and legal nia, Galicia, and the Basque country. #is inter- instruments to carry it out); and the lack of &- pretation, however, has given way to a homoge- nancial capacity to carry out policies appropri- nization of the model. Indeed, homogenization ately. started with the &rst Autonomous Community In order to seek solutions to the de&cits Agreements (1981), and continued with the noted above, several di%erent possibilities could second Autonomous Community Agreements be explored, including: reinterpreting the Con- (1992) (the aim of which was to reduce the scope 20 stitution and the statutes of autonomy (which of the devolution principle). has been suggested and attempted throughout In e%ect, the opportunity provided by the this period without any positive result); consti- Spanish Constitution of 1978 to turn the Span- tutional reform (which has not yet &rmly ap- ish state into an asymmetrically decentralized peared on the agenda of the various political state has been missed. #e materialization of the parties); and statutory reform within the exist- model of autonomous communities has been ing constitutional framework (which is, in fact, the result of the speci&cation of constitutional being carried out). principles relating to territorial organization, Whatever else happens, statutory reforms through the so-called process of autonomy. But for the di%erent autonomous communities are this speci&cation has resulted in the loss of the now being tackled. Catalonia has carried out its constitutional objective of 'exibility and asym- own statutory reforms to overcome the Consti- metry, which seemed able to give rise to the de- tution’s gaps and de&cits related to its capacity velopment of a model of autonomous commu- for self-government, &nance, and the organiza- nities adequate to the multinational character tion of the Catalan government. #ese reforms of the Spanish state. According to the thesis of also address new political requirements such as some Spanish constitutional specialists, the ma- the recognition of new rights and duties; prin- jor defect of the current constitutional design is ciples guiding public policies; and the de&nition that an attempt has been made to resolve two of a new system of relations with the EU, the di%erent issues at the same time, and with the Spanish state, and the other autonomous com- same techniques of territorial organization: the munities. #e degree to which the state is pre- decentralization of a state and the articulation pared to accept political heterogeneity across of its multinational nature. the autonomous communities (and within the

++ Volume 17, Number 1, 2008 framework of the Constitution) can be seen in nationality and region, otherwise the di%erentia- these reforms. tion established in the Constitution itself would not make sense. Nevertheless, the wording of the Future reforms must emphasize that pro- Constitution is ambiguous as the constitutional posals for statutory reform cannot attempt to text attempted to combine two opposing tradi- amend the Constitution, but must scrupulously tions: one upholding a single Spanish nation, respect its constraints and principles. However, governed from the centre; the other claiming the reforms can attempt to take maximum advan- existence of di%erent nationalities with the right tage of the possibilities o%ered by the statutes of to self-government. So as not to break the politi- cal consensus on the wording of the Constitu- autonomy to facilitate and preserve the political tion, it eventually included the two concepts in a autonomy of the autonomous communities, and single precept (article 2 SC), making it tremen- should encourage, as far as possible, the con- dously di)cult to locate a coherent understand- stitutionalization of the division of powers be- ing of the constitutional text. Ultimately, it can tween the state and autonomous communities. be concluded that the Constitution uses the term While, ultimately, political pacts will largely de- nationality, which has the essential meaning of a termine the level of autonomy each autonomous nation without a state. In this way, “nationality” community can achieve, as well as its relations implies (as does the term “nation”) a higher level with the state, the devolution principle, and the of consciousness of collective identity than “re- potential for asymmetry in the possible agree- gion,” which describes mere historic and cultural ments between the state and autonomous com- roots or common economic links. munities, are su)cient bases for believing that 4 E. Fossas i Espadaler & J.Ll. Pérez Francesca, Lliçons de dret constitucional (Barcelona: Enci- there is a very broad legal margin for deepen- clopèdia Catalana, 1994) at 281 and following. ing the political autonomy of the autonomous #e constitutional block is the set of rules whose communities. At the very least, it can be said function is to distribute and organize the divi- that the Spanish constitution of 1978 can in- sion of powers between the central state and the deed accommodate the evolution of Spain as a autonomous communities; it is the set of rules multinational state; that the SC has not been so the Constitutional Court has to apply when it used is a lost opportunity, but one that could be resolves con'icts of power among the various regained. instances of government. It is made up of the Spanish Constitution, the statutes of autonomy, laws granting powers, and the non-statutory laws Notes amending powers (See article 150 of the SC). * Antoni Abad i Ninet is visiting professor of 5 #e SC provides two broad procedures for draw- comparative constitutional law at the S.U.N.Y. ing up a statute of autonomy: a general one (ar- at Bu%alo, and Ph.D., University of Barcelona. ticle 146) for those gaining access via article 143; Adrià Rodes Mateu is visiting researcher in con- and a special one (article 151.2) for those gaining stitutional law at Rutgers, the State University of access via 151.1 and the second transitional pro- New Jersey, and J.D., Autonomous University of vision. Barcelona. 6 Institute of Autonomous Community Studies, 1 Isidre Molas, Derecho Constitucional (Madrid: Report on the Reform of the Statute (Barcelona: Tecnos, 2005) at 176. Government of Catalonia. Institute of Autono- 2 #is situation has resulted in the autonomous mous Community Studies, 2003) at 43-44. communities facing signi&cant constitutional 7 #e SC establishes two procedures for achiev- instability. M.A. Aparicio Pérez, “L’adequació de ing autonomy for the whole territory: a general l’estructura de l’estat a la constitució (reforma one (article 143.2, with the variant of the &rst constitucional vs. reforma dels estatuts)” (2005) transitional provision), which was followed by all 31 Revista Catalana de Dret Públic 61. the autonomous communities except Andalusia; 3 #e dominant Spanish constitutional doctrine and a special one (article 151.1), which requires a draws no legally relevant conclusion from the broader manifestation of the wish for autonomy, distinction made in article 2 between “nation- as in the case of Andalusia. Besides these proce- ality” and “region.” In contrast to this position, dures, speci&c means are to be used by particular we understand that there is, indeed, a legally territories, including: #e second transitional relevant constitutional distinction between provision for Catalonia, the Basque Country and

Constitutional Forum constitutionnel +- Galícia; the &rst additional provision and the government presented a memorandum to the fourth transitional provision for territories with European Union to obtain o)cial recognition traditional rights, especially Navarre; and article of the languages other than Spanish which have 144.b and the &$h additional provision, for been declared o)cial by the statutes of autono- Ceuta and Melilla. my; on 13 June 2005, the Council of Ministers 8 In the regional states, a dual level of govern- of General A%airs and Foreign Relations agreed ment is established through a process of political that members states could ask the institutions of decentralization, guaranteed by the constitu- the EU to allow the use of currently non-o)cial tion of the state. #e “devolutionary” transfer languages; and, more recently, on 16 November of political powers involves the existence of a 2005, an agreement was signed allowing the use previous centre and, in practice, has normally of the in the Committee of the been established for only some regions of a state. Regions. #e autonomous communities follow the idea 20 Supra note 4 at 286. of devolution much more closely than they do that of federation. Concerning the distinction between these two concepts see J. Kincaid, “#e Devolution Tortoise and the Centralization Hare” (May-June 1998) New England Economic Review 13-40. 9 #is has been recognized in Constitutional Court Judgment 76/1983, 5 August, indicating that the “system of autonomous communities is characterized by a balance between homogene- ity and diversity in the public legal statute of the territorial entities making it up.” 10 An “autonomous city” is a special administra- tive division. Only the cities of Ceuta and Melilla have had this status since 1995. #e main dif- ference between autonomous communities and cities is that the latter do not have legislative capacity. 11 Supra note 4 at 322, 333. 12 Ibid. at 291. 13 Ibid. at 292. 14 Because the Constitutional Court initially ac- cepted this view of the scope of “bases,” it has been unable to exercise e%ective control over their extension. 15 Examples include general planning of economic activities (a right referred to in the Statute of Autonomy of Catalonia), to conditional or over- ride powers of the Catalan government in the economic sphere. 16 M. Corretja i Torrens and C. Viver Pi-Sunyer, “La reforma de l’Estatut d’Autonomia i les competèn- cies de la Generalitat” (2005) 7 Revista Activitat Parlamentària 1 at 17-23. 17 #e reform to the Spanish Senate has created a signi&cant debate for many years. 18 In this context we highlight the projects to reform the Basque (Ibarretxe Plan) and Catalan statutes. 19 Some e%orts have been made concerning the use of the Catalan language before European institutions: in December 2004, the central

+. Volume 17, Number 1, 2008