Working Papers
in European Language Diversity 20
Petra Roter The Åland Islands Peace Institute
Legal and Institutional Framework Analysis: Hungarian in Slovenia
Mainz Helsinki Wien Tartu Mariehamn Oulu Maribor Working Papers in European Language Diversity is a peer-reviewed online publication series of the research project ELDIA, serving as an outlet for preliminary research findings, individual case studies, background and spin-off research.
Editor-in-Chief Johanna Laakso (Wien)
Editorial Board Kari Djerf (Helsinki), Riho Grünthal (Helsinki), Anna Kolláth (Maribor), Helle Metslang (Tartu), Karl Pajusalu (Tartu), Anneli Sarhimaa (Mainz), Sia Spiliopoulou Åkermark (Mariehamn), Helena Sulkala (Oulu), Reetta Toivanen (Helsinki)
Publisher Research consortium ELDIA c/o Prof. Dr. Anneli Sarhimaa Northern European and Baltic Languages and Cultures (SNEB) Johannes Gutenberg-Universität Mainz Jakob-Welder-Weg 18 (Philosophicum) D-55099 Mainz, Germany Contact: [email protected]
2012, © European Language Diversity for All (ELDIA)
ELDIA is an international research project funded by the European Commission. The views expressed in the Working Papers in European Language Diversity are the sole responsibility of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Commission. All contents of the Working Papers in European Language Diversity are subject to the Austrian copyright law. The contents may be used exclusively for private, non-commercial purposes. Regarding any further uses of the Working Papers in European Language Diversity, please contact the publisher.
ISSN 2192-2403
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Foreword
The Legal and Institutional Framework Analyses represent the collected knowledge of the ELDIA- project in the field of law, politics and policies and of their institutional representations with regard to the languages studied in this research project. Each report examines one or two languages in their wider national and international context. The core scientific questions in the present law and policy studies are: What role is played by law in the use or non-use of different languages in different domains? What role is played by law in promoting or inhibiting language diversity as such? Finally, which factors related to legal and institutional matters influence language use, language maintenance and language diversity? Each study consists of three main parts: a) The overall legislative and institutional framework; b) Languages and minority policies in practice (a section which covers the discussions and the implementation, or non- implementation, of constitutional provisions, language legislation, education and media legislation) and c) an identification and analysis of the legal actors, i.e. persons, organisations, and public authorities engaged in the development, interpretation and monitoring (judicial and other) of the relevant legal frameworks. The law researchers involved in this part of the research have benefited greatly from the input of and interactions with the broad network of researchers represented in the project, and thus we are now even more convinced that contacts across scientific disciplines is a precondition for a deeper understanding of complex societal processes. The Legal and Institutional Framework Analyses shall form part of the background for the development of the comparative and interdisciplinary work that is currently taking place within the ELDIA-project.
As all Working Papers published on the project website and within ELDIA, also these studies have been submitted to extensive project internal as well as external review under the supervision of Associate Professor, Jur. Dr., Sia Spiliopoulou Åkermark. The Åland Islands Peace Institute is responsible for this component of the ELDIA project. Any comments can be sent to [email protected] We wish to thank all those that have kindly contributed to our work with their comments and advice.
Mariehamn in August 2012 Sia Spiliopoulou Åkermark The Åland Islands Peace Institute
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Table of Contents
1 THE OVERALL LEGISLATIVE AND INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK ...... 1
1.1 THE POSITION OF LANGUAGES AND MINORITIES IN THE LEGAL AND ...... 1 POLITICAL CONTEXT OF SLOVENIA ...... 1 1.2 LANGUAGE AS AN AREA REGULATED BY LAW ...... 14 1.3 LANGUAGE DIVERSITY AND MULTILINGUALISM ...... 16 1.4 THE HUNGARIAN LANGUAGE IN SLOVENIA ...... 26 1.5 POLITICAL AND LEGAL TRADITION IN DEALING WITH MINORITIES AND LANGUAGE ...... 28 1.6 CHANGES OVER TIME IN LEGAL AND POLITICAL THINKING ON MINORITIES AND LANGUAGES .. 29 1.7 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM ...... 31 1.8 LANGUAGES COVERED BY LEGISLATION ...... 33 1.9 REGULATION IN RELATION TO MINORITIES AND LANGUAGES ...... 36 1.9.1 Constitutional provisions ...... 36 1.9.2 Language legislation ...... 39 1.9.3 Education legislation ...... 44 1.9.4 Media legislation ...... 46 1.10 OTHER LEGAL AREAS OF PARTICULAR IMPORTANCE ...... 51 1.11 THE RELATION BETWEEN NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL LAW IN THE DOMESTIC LEGAL ORDER ...... 52 1.12 DEBATES ON LANGUAGE RIGHTS AND ‘OLD’ AND ‘NEW’ MINORITIES ...... 55 2 LANGUAGE AND MINORITY POLICIES IN PRACTICE ...... 59
2.1 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES ON LANGUAGES AND MINORITIES ...... 59 2.1.1 With respect to constitutional provisions ...... 59 2.1.2 With respect to language legislation ...... 63 2.1.3 With respect to education legislation ...... 68 2.1.4 With respect to media legislation ...... 68 2.2 RECENT LEGAL INITIATIVES ON LANGUAGES AND MINORITIES ...... 70 2.3 CASE LAW ON LANGUAGES AND MINORITIES ...... 75 2.3.1 With respect to constitutional provisions ...... 75 2.3.2 With respect to language legislation ...... 76 2.3.3 With respect to education legislation ...... 78 2.3.4 With respect to media legislation ...... 80 2.4 PRACTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANS AND OTHER SUPERVISORY ORGANS ...... 80 Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
2.4.1 With respect to constitutional provisions ...... 81 2.4.2 With respect to language legislation ...... 82 2.4.3 With respect to education legislation ...... 83 2.4.4 With respect to media legislation ...... 84 2.5 PRACTICE OF INTERNATIONAL MONITORING ORGANS AND COURTS WITH RESPECT TO LANGUAGE AND MINORITY ISSUES IN SLOVENIA ...... 84 2.6 PROGRAMMES AND ACTION PLANS ON LANGUAGE USE AND LANGUAGE DIVERSITY...... 88 2.7 VIEW ON LANGUAGE AND MINORITY LEGISLATION IN THE WIDER PUBLIC DISCOURSE AND MEDIA ...... 90 2.8 PERCEIVED EFFECT OF THE EXAMINED LEGISLATION ON THE LANGUAGES AND LANGUAGE COMMUNITIES STUDIED ...... 91 3 THE LEGAL ACTORS ...... 91
3.1 MINORITY AND LANGUAGE GROUP ACTORS INVOLVED IN LEGAL AND POLICY DEBATES ...... 92 3.2 OTHER ACTORS ...... 93 3.3 CHANNELS OF PARTICIPATION IN LANGUAGE RELATED MATTERS ...... 94 3.4 USE OF CHANNELS OF PARTICIPATION IN PRACTICE ...... 95 3.5 INSTITUTIONS RESPONSIBLE FOR MINORITY AND LANGUAGE POLICIES ...... 96 3.6 THE ROLE OF THE KIN-STATE OR COUNTRY OF ORIGIN IN LANGUAGE MAINTENANCE ...... 97 4 CONCLUDING REMARKS ...... 99
4.1 REGULATION OF THE LANGUAGES AND LANGUAGE COMMUNITIES IN THE LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL SYSTEM ...... 99 4.2 ATTITUDES TOWARDS THE LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL REGULATION OF THE LANGUAGES AND LANGUAGE COMMUNITIES ...... 100 4.3 THE POSITION OF LANGUAGE DIVERSITY IN THE LEGAL AND POLITICAL SYSTEM ...... 101 4.4 THE OVERALL QUALITY OF THE LEGAL SYSTEM IN LANGUAGE MATTERS ...... 102 LIST OF REFERENCES...... 105
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 1
1 The overall legislative and institutional framework1
1.1 The position of languages and minorities in the legal and political context of Slovenia
The present position of languages and minorities in the legal and political context of the Republic of Slovenia is largely inherited from the past. Within the former Yugoslavia, Slovenia was a vocal defender of minority rights. This was mainly due to the existence of strong Slovenian minorities in neighbouring countries: Italy, Austria and Hungary. It is estimated that about a quarter of the Slovenians were left outside the State of Serbs, Croats and Slovenians after the First World War,2 although some authors3 write that about a third of the Slovenian nation remained in the neighbouring states. With the exception of a territory in the East of Slovenia, populated by Hungarians and Slovenians, which Hungary lost to Slovenia/Yugoslavia according to the terms of the Trianon Peace Treaty after the First World War, the drafting of the new border of Slovenia “was not at all favourable to Slovenians.”4
Slovenians were left – due to geopolitical reasons and inter-war great power bargaining – in Italy and Hungary, and after the 1921 Carinthian plebiscite, a large number remained also in Austria.5 In the wake of the Second World War, Slovenia’s borders in the West changed (i.e. moved westwards), but “it was this post-First World War discrepancy between the ethnic and political frontiers, creating national minorities on both sides of the border, that has ever since defined Slovenia’s attitudes towards other ethnic groups in general, and its language policies in particular.”6
Furthermore, as Slovenians had, until 1991 when they gained independence, always been a part of a political entity in which they themselves formed a numerical minority (be it in the Habsburg monarchy, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, and
1 Unless otherwise stated, all translations in this paper are by Petra Roter. 2 Report submitted by the Republic of Slovenia pursuant to Article 25, Paragraph 1, of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, ACFC/SR(2000)004, submitted on 29 November 2000 (hereafter referred to as FCNM Slovenia’s Report 2000), Part I, Article 1. 3 For example, Melik, 1997, p. 50. 4 Roter, 2003, p. 218. 5 Milanovich, 1996, p. 28. 6 Roter, 2003, p. 218. Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 2
different Yugoslavias), they have developed a strong understanding (perception) of the ‘Slovenian smallness’ (i.e. that Slovenia is a small country and that Slovenians are a small nation).7 This was further strengthened by nationalisms of the neighbouring much larger nations, culminating in the partition and occupation of the Slovenian-populated territory before the Second World War and also during and after the War. This perception that the Slovenian nation is a small nation and hence particularly vulnerable to foreign pressures and the (geo-political) appetite of the neighbouring nations and states has been a very strong incentive for the development of legislation regulating the use of languages in Slovenia.8 In general, such legislation has been adopted with the intention to protect the Slovenian language. This, however, has not been done at the expense of preserving the equal use of the Italian and the Hungarian languages.9
In such a context, for Slovenia and Slovenians, attitudes towards minorities and minority protection have always been considered a transnational matter – i.e. a matter that simultaneously applies to Slovenia and to its neighbouring states (and to Slovenian minority communities living in those states). During the Cold War, when minority issues were regarded as an issue of the internal affairs of individual states and of an individual bloc (either Eastern or Western), such a ‘reciprocal view’ of minority rights was very problematic. In such a sensitive political context, Slovenia turned to the Yugoslav federal authorities. From Slovenia’s point of view and given its interests, it was essential that Yugoslavia and the Yugoslav republics established and implemented minority protection, which would then provide a background against which Yugoslavia (on behalf of Slovenia) could expect and ask for minority protection for the Slovenian national minorities in Yugoslavia’s neighbouring countries.10
This lengthy experience11 with minority protection in Slovenia can certainly be seen as having some socialising effects on the population of Slovenia. Slovenians were well aware of the rights granted to Italian and Hungarian national communities. This awareness, acquired through the
7 Roter, 2003. 8 Ibid. 9 For the contents of Slovenia's legal framework for minority protection, and for the protection of minority languages in particular, see section 1.2 below. 10 Roter, 2003, pp. 223–224. 11 See also section 1.5 below.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 3
educational system and in everyday life, influenced the formation of a new democratic state in the early 1990s.
In particular, in the process of state-formation at the turn of the 1980s, which was accompanied by the process of nation-building, the level of minority protection was to remain unchanged in the newly independent state. At least three factors played a key role in this otherwise very turbulent process: firstly, as already mentioned, the lengthy experience with minority rights and the protection of the Italians and Hungarians in the areas where they have traditionally (autochthonously) lived has firmly established minority protection as part and parcel of Slovenia. In other words, the process of socialisation has produced an overall acceptance of these national communities, and an acceptance of the level of their protection, which has been intended to provide adequate opportunities for these communities and persons belonging to them to preserve their distinct ethnic identity in a country dominated by the Slovenian nation. Secondly, Slovenia has always – albeit tacitly – compared minority protection at home with minority protection as provided for Slovenian minorities living in the neighbouring countries. In such a context, it was not politically wise to worsen the legal status and the protection of Italians and Hungarians in Slovenia as this was likely to have a (further) negative effect on the position and rights of Slovenians across the border. Thirdly, Slovenia perceived minority protection as a proof of its democracy and respect for human rights. This was particularly important at the time when Slovenia was seeking international recognition as a newly independent state. Moreover, it became perhaps even more crucial when Slovenia was seeking membership in international governmental organizations such as the Council of Europe, the United Nations, and later the European Union. During this process, Slovenia emphasised repeatedly that it had provided for the level of minority protection equal to or above international minority rights standards.
With a population of just under two million,12 the Republic of Slovenia has approximately a tenth of its population ethnically non-Slovenian. Only two very small national minorities are recognised by the State as a ‘national community’ (narodna skupnost): the Hungarians and the Italians. Their numbers have been decreasing over time: in 2002, 6,243 persons declared themselves as ethnic Hungarians (0.3% of the total population of Slovenia) and 7,713 declared Hungarian as their
12 According to the 2002 national census, Slovenia’s population is 1,964,036. Unless otherwise stated, all figures on Slovenia’s ethnic composition are from this census. See Statistični urad Republike Slovenije, no date.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 4
mother tongue; and 2,258 persons (0.1%) declared themselves to be ethnic Italians, whereas 3,762 listed Italian as their mother tongue.13 In comparison to the 1991 national census, these numbers decreased from 8,000 (Hungarians)/8,720 (Hungarian mother tongue speakers) and 2,959 (Italians)/3,882 (Italian mother tongue speakers).
Following the announcement of the results of the 2002 census, minority representatives were worried but the Government is convinced that the actual numbers are slightly higher for both communities.14 The Government has thus concluded – contrary to what is believed by minority representatives15 – that “the number of members of the respective national communities is higher, when their interests are directly involved (election of councillors, deputy mayors, etc.) in contrast to matters of no specific interest.”16 For minority representatives, one of the key reasons for the dwindling numbers was the lack of a possibility for individuals to declare more than one national identity. Accordingly, minority representatives have repeatedly called for the authorities to correct this one-dimensional view of ethnic/national identity in the 2011 census. However, as the 2011 census is only a register-based census, this issue is non-applicable as individuals are no longer asked about their ethnic affiliation, nor can they declare their mother tongue. The 2002 numerical size of both national communities therefore remains the most relevant piece of information for analysing language-related issues applicable to both communities. This is relevant for understanding the application/implementation of Slovenia’s legislation, rather than for the very substance of Slovenia’s legislation on minority protection. For the legislation on minority protection applies, as will be seen below, to both national communities regardless of their numerical size. However, effective implementation of such legislation often tends to be affected by the size of both national minorities.
In addition to the protection of individual rights of persons belonging to these minorities, the Hungarian and Italian national communities are accorded a special status and special rights under the 1991 Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia17 (Article 64), including (emphasis is added):
13 Ibid. 14 This opinion is based on the numbers of minority members registered in special electoral registers, minors (up to 18 years of age), and those that live outside of ethnically-mixed areas (see Second report submitted by Slovenia pursuant to Article 25, Paragraph 1 of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, received on 6 July 2004, ACFC/SR/II(2004)008 (hereafter referred to as the FCNM Slovenia’s Second Report 2004), p. 11. 15 See Šuligoj, 2004. 16 FCNM Slovenia’s Second Report 2004, p. 11. 17 The Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia – consolidated text that includes the original Constitution of 23 December 1991 (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 33/1991-I) and the amendments adopted by the Constitutional Act of 14 July 1997 (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 42/1997), the Constitutional Act
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 5
the right to use their national symbols freely and, in order to preserve their national identity, the right to establish organisations and develop economic, cultural, scientific and research activities, as well as activities in the field of public media and publishing. In accordance with laws, these two national communities and their members have the right to education and schooling in their own languages, as well as the right to establish and develop such education and schooling. The geographic areas in which bilingual schools are compulsory shall be established by law. These national communities and their members shall be guaranteed the right to foster relations with their nations of origin and their respective countries. The state shall provide material and moral support for the exercise of these rights.
This system of minority protection has been largely inherited from the socialist/communist period when virtually the same system of protecting the Hungarian and Italian communities by according them special individual and collective minority rights (including equal use and official status of minority languages in ethnically-mixed areas and minority representation) existed.18
Perhaps the most obvious difference between the systems of minority protection under communism and in independent Slovenia is related to terminology and the constitutional status of both communities: Hungarians and Italians were referred to as a ‘nationality’ (narodnost) in the Socialist Republic (SR) of Slovenia,19 and they were accorded the status of a constitutive element of the SR Slovenia. For the 1974 Constitution of SR Slovenia (Article 1) defined the Republic as “the state based on the sovereignty of the Slovenian nation and the people of Slovenia, […] and [as] a socialist, self-governing, democratic community of […] the Slovenian nation and the Italian and Hungarian nationalities.” By contrast, the 1991 Constitution (Article 3) – although establishing Slovenia as “a state of all its citizens” – makes it very clear that the state has been “founded on the permanent and inalienable right of the Slovene nation to self-determination.”
In the 1991 Constitution of Slovenia (Articles 5 and 64), Italians and Hungarians have been referred to as a ‘national community’ (narodna skupnost). In both systems, the omission of the term national minority – not just in Slovenia but also across the former Yugoslavia – was (and still is) probably related to the perception of the term minority as pejorative.20 More importantly, the
of 25 July 2000 (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 66/2000), the Constitutional Act of 27 February 2003 (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 24/2003), the Constitutional Acts of 15 June 2004 (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 69/2004), and the Constitutional Act of 20 June 2006 (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 68/2006). Hereafter referred to as the 1991 Constitution of Slovenia. 18 Ustava Socialistične republike Slovenije (Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Slovenia), Dopisna delavska univerza, 1974, Articles. 250 and 251 (hereafter referred to as 1974 Constitution of SR Slovenia). 19 1974 Constitution of SR Slovenia, Articles 1, 250 and 251. 20 INV, 1990, pp. 8–9.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 6
constitutional change from the term nationalities to national communities as denoting groups to be protected is not purely terminological:21 nationalities were defined as constitutive elements of SR Slovenia, but the 1991 Constitution of Slovenia has downgraded their status to traditional national minorities. The term nationality (narodnost; understood in an ethnic, rather than a civic sense) is still in use, although not included in the 1991 Constitution, but some administrative bodies (e.g. the Governmental Office for National Communities, also known as the Office for Nationalities – Urad za narodnosti) have retained the old terminology in their names. Overall, the most important change in the new political system has been the omission of constitutional equality between the Slovenian nation and the two national communities.22
As for the substance of minority protection, the socialist/communist legacy is apparent in the so- called ‘positive approach’ towards addressing minority rights, based on the recognition of the need to grant national minorities both individual and collective rights and the right to participation in decision-making processes at the local and national levels. Importantly, Slovenia’s approach to minority protection is especially focused on the protection and preservation of special minority identity. This involves measures such as protecting minority languages as official languages and as languages of instruction in schools. Such measures apply territorially: i.e. in ‘ethnically mixed areas’ as they are defined by law. This general approach towards minority protection in Slovenia, present in some seventy national laws,23 has not changed significantly overtime. Yet, such an approach to minority protection has only been applicable to the Hungarian and Italian national communities. By contrast, no special arrangements were in place in SR Slovenia to protect the Roma. According to the 2002 census, there are only 3,246 Roma in Slovenia.24 Slovenia’s municipalities with Roma population, however, have reported a number of Roma almost twice as high (6,264), whereas the Government estimates their number at around 7,000–10,000.25 The very mentioning of the Roma community in the 1991 Constitution of Slovenia (Article 65) is thus a novelty, although the text stops short of according the Roma any special rights.
The Roma community inhabits several municipalities, spread mainly across the regions of Prekmurje, Dolenjska and Gorenjska.26 These are the areas that have been traditionally inhabited by the Roma community, although the actual administrative delineation of the areas settled by the
21 Komac, 1998, pp. 143–145. 22 Komac, 1998, p. 145. 23 For the full list of the relevant national legislation see the website of the Office for National communities of the Republic of Slovenia, available at http://www.uvn.gov.si/si/zakonodaja_in_dokumenti/pravni_ predpisi_posebna_zascita_za_italijansko_in_madzarsko_narodno_skupnost/ (20 April 2011). 24 Statistični urad Republike Slovenije, no date. 25 FCNM Slovenia’s Second Report 2004, p. 9. 26 FCNM Slovenia’s Report 2000, paragraph 15.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 7
Roma autochthonously has been subject to an ongoing debate. According to Article 65 of the 1991 Constitution, special minority rights for the Roma community will be provided for and guaranteed by a special law. The latter was adopted by the National Assembly only on 30 March 2007,27 although – following a decision by the government in 1995 – special rights of the Roma community and its members had been previously provided for in a number of specialised laws (e.g., in the electoral legislation, in the laws on education, mass media and culture). Most of these laws were applicable to those municipalities in which the Roma community had been recognised as having lived there autochthonously. Although some legislation has changed in the meantime, the criterion of an autochthonous settlement is still applicable in the area of political representation at the local level. Thus, the Roma have the right to elect a Roma councillor only in those twenty municipalities where they are recognised as an autochthonous minority.28
Intensified efforts by the Government to help the Roma overcome their social and economic disadvantages have brought about certain positive results, but those are not spread evenly across all areas populated by the Roma community.29 Although the Government has been active in helping Roma in the areas of education, employment, housing and social security,30 persons belonging to the Roma community remain subject to stigmatisation, including by the media, to discrimination, and – as recently pointed out by Amnesty International – they are still denied access to housing and water.31 Indeed, no other ethnic community in Slovenia faces similar socio- economic challenges. This dual minority status of the Roma community – as they are both an ethnic and a social/socio-economic minority – presents a very important factor influencing the legal and political framework for addressing any Roma-related issue in Slovenia.
For members of all other ethnic groups living in Slovenia, which amount to some 10% of Slovenia’s population and are not officially recognised as national minorities (national communities), Article 61 of the 1991 Constitution is particularly important. It specifies that “[e]veryone has the right to freely express affiliation with his nation or national community, to foster and give expression to his
27 Law on the Roma Community (Zakon o romski skupnosti v Republiki Sloveniji), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 33/2007 (13 April 2007). 28 On the development of the political representation of the Roma community see Komac, 2007. 29 Commission of the European Communities, 2002 Regular Report on Slovenia’s Progress towards Accession, 9 October 2002, SEC(2002) 1411, p. 27. See also Opinion on Slovenia, adopted by the Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, on 12 September 2002, published on 14 March 2005, ACFC/INF/OP/I(2005)002, paragraphs 29, 39, 90 and 107. Hereafter referred to as the FCNM Advisory Committee’s Opinion on Slovenia 2002. 30 On these activities see the FCNM Slovenia’s Second Report 2004, pp. 12–22. 31 Amnesty International, 2011.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 8
culture and to use his language and script.”32 Among the most numerous non-Slovenian ethnic communities are the Serbs (38,964 persons, 2%),33 Croats (35,642 persons, 1.8%), Muslims (10,467 persons, 0.5%). There are also 21,542 (1.1%) Bosniacs – a new ethnic category introduced in the 2002 census. These communities of Serbs, Croats, Bosniacs (including Muslims as an ethnic category), Montenegrins, Macedonians and Albanians form the so-called ‘new’ minorities (or new national communities) in Slovenia.
With the exception of the inhabitants of some small villages alongside the Slovenian-Croatian border, members of these ethnic communities are largely of immigrant (or non-autochthonous) origin, with most of the migration taking place after World War II, and they live scattered across the country.34 Contrary to both traditional, recognised national minorities in Slovenia (i.e. the Italian and the Hungarian national community), persons belonging to these new national communities therefore form non-territorial new minorities. They were not accorded any special status in the communist period. Since these communities were constitutive nations of the former Yugoslavia,35 it was never deemed necessary to protect them by according them special minority rights.
In Slovenia, these communities are neither recognised as national communities in the legislation, nor are they accorded any special protection. Only in the mid-1990s the Government began to discuss and finance certain aspects (excluding political participation) of an emerging integration policy.36 The Government grants financial assistance to cultural associations of these communities in Slovenia, but has been confronted with other aspects of minority protection, including the question of recognising these ethnic communities as minorities. This happened most notably in 2003, when a Co-ordination of unions and cultural associations of the constitutive nations and nationalities of the former SFRY in the Republic of Slovenia presented a Public initiative of Albanians, Bosniacs, Montenegrins, Croats, Macedonians and Serbs living in Slovenia, in which representatives of these communities asked the National Assembly to change the 1991 Constitution of Slovenia and recognise the Albanians, Bosniacs, Montenegrins, Croats,
32 The 1991 Slovenian Constitution (Article 63) further stipulates that “[a]ny incitement to national, racial, religious or other discrimination, and the inflaming of national, racial, religious or other hatred and intolerance are unconstitutional.” 33 For a detailed account of the Serbian community in Slovenia see Komac, 1997; and Komac, 2005. 34 For a detailed account of these populations see Komac and Medvešek, 2004. 35 Žagar, 2010. 36 See the results of a two-year project, in which the author participated, on the perceptions of a Slovenian integration policy, headed by Miran Komac (Percepcije slovenske integracijske politike – Perceptions of a Slovenian Integration Policy), CRP V5-0780-02, published in: Komac and Medvešek, 2004.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 9
Macedonians and Serbs living in Slovenia as national minorities.37 That persons belonging to these new minorities wish the Government of Slovenia to recognise the existence of these new minorities, such as the Bosniac minority in Slovenia, has been noted also by Slovenia’s Ombudsman.38
Indeed, since around 2003, Slovenia has witnessed greater political mobilisation of these new minorities, organised within their cultural associations. In the wake of many questions and recommendations by international institutions that Slovenia should begin to actively manage this type of its ethnic diversity, the National Assembly finally adopted, in early 2011, a special declaration on new national communities in Slovenia whose members originate from the former Yugoslav republics.39 The declaration is important for a number of reasons, including: firstly, the declaration in effect officially recognises the existence of these communities in Slovenia and of their special interests, which are now to be addressed and dealt with in a more systematic and regular manner. Secondly, the declaration introduces a new terminology for this type of ethnic groups living in Slovenia – namely, they are referred to as new national communities. Thirdly, the declaration paves the way for the creation of a special advisory body (a council), composed of persons belonging to these communities and governmental officials, that would serve as a forum for discussing issues pertaining to these communities.
As a whole, this declaration is a significant step forward in terms of Slovenia’s recognition of its ethnic/national diversity and the need to manage this diversity more systematically in co- operation with persons belonging to different ethnic/national minorities. With the adoption of this declaration, the National Assembly has made it possible to discuss and address issues that apply to and are important for these communities and persons belonging to them, including the issue of protection and preservation of their distinct identity markers, such as their language, and in some cases also a different script (Cyrillic), religion, or culture.
37 Koordinacija zvez in kulturnih društev konstitutivnih narodov in narodnosti razpadle SFRJ v Republiki Sloveniji (Co- ordination of unions and cultural associations of the constitutive nations and nationalities of the former SFRY in the Republic of Slovenia): Javna pobuda Albancev, Bošnjakov, Črnogorcev, Hrvatov, Makedoncev, Srbov, ki živimo v Republiki Sloveniji (Public initiative of Albanians, Bosniacs, Montenegrins, Croats, Macedonians and Serbs living in Slovenia), presented in Ljubljana, on 14 October 2003. 38 See, for instance, Varuh človekovih pravic (Slovenia’s Ombudsman), 2004, p. 14. 39 Declaration on the situation of national communities of persons belonging to nations of the former SFRY in the Republic of Slovenia (Deklaracija Republike Slovenije o položaju narodnih skupnosti pripadnikov narodov nekdanje SFRJ v Republiki Sloveniji (DePNNS)), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 7/2011 (4 February 2011).
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 10
The 2002 census also revealed that a large part of the Slovenian citizens either did not want to declare their nationality40 (ethnic identity) (48,588 or 2.5% of Slovenia’s population), or their nationality remained “unknown” (126,325 or 6.4% of Slovenia’s population) – taken together, these two categories amount to no less than 174,913 persons (8.9% of the total population of the Republic of Slovenia). For the Government, “[o]ne of the possible explanations is that this category comprises many persons originating from mixed marriages”.41 It is unclear what factors caused this significant increase, but nation-building and state-formation42 may have been at least partially responsible for it. In the Slovenian context, where the so-called ethnic model43 and perception of the nation is the prevailing one, the size of this ‘group’ is somewhat surprising. It can be an indication of an inappropriate (exclusive) way of collecting such data on an individual’s ethnicity/nationality, but also of the attitudes in the society as a whole towards either multiple ethnic identities or towards these specific ethnicities.
One small ethnic group also needs to be mentioned in this introductory account of the position of languages and minorities in the legal and political context of the Republic of Slovenia – namely, the so- called German-speaking population of Slovenia. This group is composed of some 1,500 persons, both ethnic Austrians and ethnic Germans (hence the reference to their common ethnic marker – the German language).44 The group is internally split between the Kočevje Germans (a small German community inhabiting the Kočevje region of Slovenia, known for its special dialect of German) and ethnic Germans and Austrians elsewhere in Slovenia, primarily living in Slovenia’s second largest city, Maribor.45
This group had not perceived itself, and had not been perceived by the majority population, as a coherent ethnic identity group before Austria’s nationalist Jörg Heider began his intensive campaign to grant them special rights in the 1990s. This issue became particularly prominent during Slovenia’s negotiations on EU membership. At one point in the late-1990s, Austria began to link, and gradually condition, its consent to Slovenia’s accession to the EU with the granting of a minority status and minority rights to the German-speaking population of Slovenia.46 The conflict between Austria and Slovenia about the status and minority rights of the German-speaking
40 The terminology used in the national census reflects Slovenia’s understanding of the nation in the ethnic sense. Accordingly, the term ‘nationality’ (narodnost) is not coterminous with the term ‘citizenship’, but instead applies to a person’s ethnic belonging/ethnic identity. 41 FCNM Slovenia’s Second Report 2004, p. 10. 42 For more on these processes see Roter, 2001. 43 For the distinction between the ethnic and the civic model and concept of the nation see Roter, 2001. 44 For more information on the German community in Slovenia, see Komac, 1998, pp. 136–137. 45 FCNM Slovenia’s Second Report 2004, p. 37. 46 Šabič, 2002, pp. 109–112.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 11
population was subsequently resolved on 30 April 2001 by the adoption of an agreement between the Governments of Slovenia and Austria on co-operation in the areas of culture, education and science. According to Article 15 of this agreement, both countries have committed themselves to including, into various programmes of their ministries, projects addressing cultural and educational needs of persons belonging to this community.47 However, the 2001 agreement stops short of recognising the German ethnic group as a national minority in Slovenia, contrary to what at least some representatives of this diverse group have been publicly advocating for.
Minority protection in Slovenia, including the protection of minority languages, applies solely to autochthonous communities, but the term ‘autochthonous’ is not clearly defined – it is defined in the sense that it applies (and with it also minority protection) to the Italian and Hungarian national communities, and to the Roma community where scientific studies have proven it to be autochthonous (i.e. in the twenty municipalities where the Roma consequently have the right to elect a Roma municipality councillor). Although the Government understands the 1991 Constitution (Article 65) as providing a legal basis for positive discrimination of the Roma, it does not consider them a national minority but “a special ethnic community or a minority with special ethnic characteristics (its own language, culture and other ethnic specificities).”48 This lack of clarity with respect to the definition of the term ‘autochthonous’ creates a certain problem when it comes to “the protection of collective rights of national minorities, which are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution”.49 Furthermore, it distinguishes between persons belonging to the same community but who have settled in Slovenia in different periods in the past, and possibly for different reasons. The lack of a clear definition of the concept of ‘autochthonous settlement’ on one hand, and the condition that minorities have to be autochthonously (or traditionally) settled in Slovenia to enjoy protection on the other hand, have been persistently criticised by some national and international institutions.
Such criticisms have been voiced by, for example, Slovenia’s Ombudsman who has addressed this problem and suggested that all national communities should be guaranteed equal rights, or, at the very least, the term ‘autochthonous’ should be clearly defined, including the criteria that would need to be met for a community to be considered an autochthonous minority.50 A similar concern about “the potential discriminatory effects of the various definitions of the different ethnic groups”
47 See FCNM Slovenia’s Second Report 2004. 48 FCNM Slovenia’s Second Report 2004, p. 28. 49 Varuh človekovih pravic (Slovenia’s Ombudsman), 2004, p. 8. 50 Varuh človekovih pravic (Slovenia’s Ombudsman), 2003, p. 17.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 12
living in Slovenia has been expressed by the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination;51 and by the Advisory Committee of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities.52 However, all the criticisms have been to no avail as Slovenia continues to apply its minority protection solely to autochthonous national communities. Based on the attitudes by Slovenian governmental officials this ‘stubbornness’ appears to be itself conditional upon the relatively high level of minority protection in Slovenia,53 which – if extended to other communities – would not be feasible for, if nothing else, financial reasons.
The two officially recognised national communities54 – the Hungarians and the Italians – display all the criteria that are typical for the European understanding of what a national minority is: they are territorially based, involuntarily created communities, with long-lasting ties to the state, obviously smaller in number than the majority nation, in a non-dominant position, and its members are Slovenian citizens.55 The autochthonous settlement of both communities, or ‘ethnically-mixed areas’, are precisely defined in the statutes of the municipalities in which the minorities reside. The Italian national community lives, and its members can enjoy special rights, in the ethnically- mixed area alongside the Slovenian-Italian border, in the municipalities of Koper/Capodistria, Izola/Isola and Piran/Pirano. Likewise, the Hungarian community inhabits the ethnically-mixed area in the North-East of Slovenia, in the municipalities of Dobrovnik/Dobronak, Hodoš/Hodos, Lendava/Lendva, Moravske Toplice and Šalovci.56 With minor exceptions with respect to language learning and electoral rights, special minority rights can only be enjoyed within ethnically-mixed areas, but irrespective of the numerical strength of both communities (which is very important given the small number of persons belonging to these communities). According to the 2002 census, 81.5% of all ethnic Italians in Slovenia and 83.5% of all ethnic Hungarians live in the respective areas.57
Importantly, minority protection has been established as a set of individual and collective rights, with the duty of Slovenia to actively guarantee and provide for minority protection, including financial support. The protection of the Roma community, by contrast, is a novelty when
51 Concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: Slovenia. 2 June 2003, CERD/C/62/CO/9, para. 7. 52 FCNM Advisory Committee’s Opinion on Slovenia 2002, paragraphs 20 and 83. 53 Informal interview with Dr. Miran Komac, Institute for Ethnic Studies, Ljubljana, 22 May 2011. 54 As pointed out above, in Slovenia, the terms ‘national community’ (narodna skupnost) and ‘nationality’ (narodnost) are used in reference to the Hungarian or Italian minority groups. 55 Roter, 2008. 56 For the list of ethnically-mixed settlements within the municipalities mentioned above, see for instance the FCNM Slovenia’s Report 2004, pp. 3–4. 57 FCNM Slovenia’s Second Report 2004, pp. 6–7.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 13
compared to the previous republican constitutions in the pre-independence period. The Constitution only refers to regulation of their special rights by law.58 The latter provides for special Roma rights in 20 municipalities where they have been recognised to live autochthonously. These municipalities do not form a single geographical area (as is the case with respect to the Italians and Hungarians). Only the Roma, rather than the entire population in a ‘Roma municipality’ enjoys minority rights. By contrast, Italian and Hungarian special minority identity is preserved by the entire population of an ethnically mixed area (for instance, all individuals living in this area have to learn the majority language (Slovenian) and the minority language (Italian or Hungarian), have bilingual personal documents, or have the right to use either of the two languages in the public domain), minority protection for the Roma does not extend to measures that affect the majority population.
Slovenia’s system for the protection of national minorities has received international acclaim, especially in the post-independence period when a Council of Europe rapporteur stated that both national communities were “rather privileged”, and that although “improvements may always be made”, Slovenia’s minority protection “is a model and an example of many other European states both east and west.”59 This observation has been quoted by many Slovenian officials, on many occasions. It seems to have been accepted as a proof that Slovenia’s approach towards minority protection has been more than appropriate in the context of the newly developed European norms on minority protection. Observations by other international institutions appear to have confirmed such a belief. For example, in its efforts to monitor the progress of candidate countries with respect to the Copenhagen accession criteria, the European Commission repeatedly made it clear – throughout the negotiating process – that Slovenia fulfilled the Copenhagen political criteria, including respect for and the protection of minority rights,60 although the Commission did note some socio-economic problems (e.g. a high level of unemployment) with respect to the Roma community.61 Such a perception – shared by Slovenia’s authorities and repeatedly confirmed by international institutions – that Slovenia more than fulfils its obligations towards national minorities and persons belonging to the Italian and Hungarian communities, has made it very hard
58 Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia, Article 65. 59 Quoted in FCNM Slovenia’s Report 2000, paragraph 16. 60 See, for example, Enlargement Strategy Paper: Report on progress towards accession by each of the candidate countries, 2000, available at http://www.esiweb.org/enlargement/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/ec-2000- strategy-paper.pdf (17 March 2011), p. 58. 61 See Commission of the European Communities (1998). Regular Report from the Commission on Slovenia’s Progress towards Accession, November 1998, available at http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/archives/pdf/key_documents/1998/slovenia_en.pdf (17 March 2011), p. 12.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 14
for representatives of both national communities to discuss possible aspects of minority protection that could (still) be improved with the authorities.
Recently, however, international institutions (e.g. the Advisory Committee under the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities) stepped up their scrutiny of Slovenia’s minority protection. Gradually, some rather critical remarks have been made, particularly with respect to the conditioning of minority protection with autochthonous settlements,62 and with respect to the gap between the legislation and its implementation in practice.63 With regard to the former, such a condition has been criticised due to the lack of any definition of the concept of ‘autochthonous settelement’,64 but also in terms of its practical application. For example, some Roma65 and all persons belonging to ‘new’ minorities are prevented from enjoying minority protection in Slovenia – as they are recognised as non-autochthonous.
1.2 Language as an area regulated by law
Indeed, in Slovenia, language has always been an issue subject to legal regulation. In particular, due to the historical circumstances in which the Slovenian nation was formed, existed and developed into a state-forming nation, language has been a particularly sensitive issue. It was first and foremost the Slovenian language that provided the key identity marker for Slovenians. Similarly, it was the language – rather than religion – that first and foremost distinguished Slovenians from the neighbouring nations. Slovenians are – like Croats, Hungarians, Italians and Austrians – predominantly Catholic. Therefore, for Slovenians, religion could not and did not play a role of a distinguished identity marker.66 Accordingly, the need to protect the Slovenian language, as well as the languages of both autochthonous national communities, can be observed in the Constitution. It reads as follows: “The official language in Slovenia is Slovene. In those municipalities where Italian or Hungarian national communities reside, Italian or Hungarian shall also be official languages.”67
62 Second opinion on Slovenia, adopted by the Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, on 26 May 2005, published on 14 March 2005, ACFC/INF/OP/II(2005)005, paragraphs 12 and 13. Hereafter referred to as FCNM Advisory Committee’s Second Opinion on Slovenia 2005. 63 Ibid., among others, paragraphs 135 and 189. 64 Ibid., paragraph 32. 65 Ibid., paragraphs 13, 22, 27 and 31. 66 See Roter, 2003, pp. 213–218. 67 Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia, Article 11.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 15
The protection of minority languages and their use have been regulated as a part of the minority protection.68 The equal use of minority languages of both autochthonous national communities has been provided for in different contexts (in schools, in public administration, in the area of toponomastic signs, broadcasting, personal documents etc.). Importantly, as seen above, ethnically mixed areas are officially bilingual, which is in line with the promotion of an ethnically (nationally, linguistically) mixed character of both areas where the traditional national communities reside.
As the Roma in Slovenia do not speak one language (but several rather different dialects),69 the government has so far not sought to regulate the use of a Romany language as a part of the minority protection of the Roma. At present, efforts are underway to standardise the Romany language. Such standardisation is seen– by the government and by at least part of the Roma community – as the necessary condition for further protection in the field of language rights of the Roma. However, it is fair to say that the negative attitudes and stereotypes towards the Roma, their poor integration into local communities (in the municipalities where they live), and their needs (related with the lack of appropriate housing, drinking water, electricity, and with high unemployment, low education and very low level of inclusion of the Roma children in the educational system,70 poor access to the health system and many other disadvantages and obstacles they face on a daily basis),71 are unlikely – for the time being – to lead to any special legislation on the use of the Romany language(s). Other issues are deemed more urgent. Moreover, as the Roma face many intra-group differences and factions, any attempt to standardise the Romany language in Slovenia could not only contribute to its wider use in the public sphere in the future but it could also bring about negative consequences in the short term as it could further antagonise relations between the Roma living in different parts of Slovenia (particularly between the Roma from Prekmurje and the Roma living in the region of Dolenjska).
68 For minority protection as it was preserved and re-established in the independent Slovenia see Komac, 1999; Komac and Zagorac, 2003. 69 For more on the Roma community in Slovenia and its position in the Slovenian society see Žagar, 2002; Komac and Varga, 2007. 70 For a detailed account of education of the Roma children in Slovenia see Bešter and Medvešek, 2007. 71 Amnesty International, 2011.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 16
1.3 Language diversity and multilingualism
Slovenia’s legal framework for the use of languages provides that “[e]veryone has the right to use his language and script in a manner provided by law in the exercise of his rights and duties and in procedures before state and other authorities performing a public function.”72 However, the attitudes in Slovenia towards language diversity and multilingualism are somewhat mixed, and the policies regulating the use of languages in the public domain appear both very complex and confusing. At the societal level, language diversity has been promoted solely in the ethnically mixed areas where the Italian and Hungarian communities reside. Slovenia’s legal system strictly provides for equal use of both official languages in the ethnically mixed areas.73 This is also reflected in the educational system where in both ethnically mixed areas, all pupils have to learn both languages – in either mono-lingual schools (in the Italian ethnically mixed area) or in bilingual schools (in the Hungarian ethnically mixed area).74 Furthermore, language diversity in the form of bilingualism in the ethnically mixed areas has been upheld in the legal and political spheres. All official relations can be conducted in either of the two languages, and all official documents and visible signs have to be available in both languages.
At individuals’ level (i.e. in issues that concern individuals), Slovenia’s educational system has been strongly promoting multilingualism for a long time. Even before Slovenia became an independent state, English (rather than Russian as it is often popularly believed outside of Slovenia) had been an obligatory subject in primary schools for all pupils (except in a few schools where German had the same position of an obligatory subject to be learned by every pupil from the fifth grade onwards). This tradition of recognising the necessity of learning a world language, and of meeting this need already in elementary education, has continued in independent Slovenia. With the processes of globalisation and European integration, as will be seen below, the promotion of multilingualism has been extended in several respects (i.e. to include more languages, and to
72 The Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia, 1991, Article 62. 73 The Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia, 1991, Article 11. 74 These differences are related to political and historical circumstances in which minority protection and the general attitudes towards both national communities were formed. In particular, the Hungarian language was not popular and the establishment of bilingual schools was deemed as the only approach towards preserving minority language fluency also among the dominant population (personal interview with Dr. László Göncz, Hungarian MP in the National Assembly, Ljubljana, 24 May 2011).
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 17
lower the age when learning languages is envisaged as mandatory). The state is obliged to provide for appropriate conditions for pupils to learn those foreign languages.
Slovenia’s long-established approach towards languages can be thus described as a dual approach consisting of the territorially limited promotion of ‘domestic’ language diversity (i.e. diversity as it applies to languages spoken by Slovenia’s autochthonous communities: Slovenians and Hungarians or Italians) on the one hand, and, on the other hand, of societal recognition that individuals’ knowledge of at least one widely spoken foreign language is an absolute necessity, and, as such should be promoted. This dual approach has been reflected in Slovenia’s legislation. Accordingly, the 1996 Law on Primary School listed, among several other goals, two language- related goals of primary education: “to develop literacy and ability to understand, communicate and converse in the Slovenian language, and in areas defined as ethnically mixed also in Italian and Hungarian language, respectively”, and “to get acquainted with other cultures and to learn foreign languages”.75 Whereas the former goal has remained unchanged although the Law itself has changed many times, the latter goal was reformulated in 2007 into: “to develop the ability of communication in foreign languages”.76 This omission of ‘other cultures’ has not been coincidental as will be seen in this section below.
In general, in the last decade, two changes have been implemented in the area of Slovenia’s approach to language diversity and multilingualism in its educational system: the policy of one world language as an obligatory course (and at least one foreign language to be offered by primary schools as an elective subject)77 has been supplemented with the learning of a second foreign language, also provided for in primary schools as an obligatory subject.78 However, with a view to “ensuring excellence, meeting of special interests [of pupils] and with a view to taking into account very different situations of individual pupils”, the government has changed the law again in 2011
75 Law on Primary School (Zakon o osnovni šoli), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 12/1996 (29 February 1996), Article 2. 76 Law Amending the Law on Primary School (Zakon o spremembah in dopolnitvah Zakona o osnovni šoli), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 102/2007 (9 November 2007), Article 2., changing Article 2. 77 Law on Primary School (Zakon o osnovni šoli), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 12/1996 (29 February 1996), Article 16 and Article 17, respectively. 78 Law Amending the Law on Primary School (Zakon o spremembah in dopolnitvah Zakona o osnovni šoli), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 102/2007 (9 November 2007), Article 6, amending Article 16.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 18
so as to enable “a more flexible approach” to learning of foreign languages.79 The changed law thus effectively abolishes the obligatory learning of a second foreign language.80 This changed legal framework for the teaching of foreign languages in primary schools, which will be implemented from 1 September 2013, provides that the first foreign language will be offered as an elective course already from the first grade, whereas the second foreign language has to be offered by primary schools, as an elective course, from the fourth to the ninth grade, for two hours weekly.81 Secondly, the age at which pupils have to take foreign language as an obligatory subject has been lowered, from the fifth grade (in the previously existing 8-grade primary school) to the fourth grade (in the 9-grade primary school at present).82 No change has been adopted with respect to Slovenia’s ‘autochthonous’ languages.
In general, for a while, particularly in the first decade after declaring its independence, language diversity appeared acceptable in Slovania, if not promoted, in a form that surpassed the promotion of bilingualism in the ethnically mixed areas: such an ‘acceptable language diversity’ applied to the use of English. It can be attributed to the overall geo-political context in which Slovenia found itself. In particular, Slovenia went through the process of state-formation and nation-building, which meant that at the turn of the 1980s, it had to distinguish itself from the former Yugoslav nations as clearly as possible. The abrupt abolition in 1991 of Serbo-Croatian as an obligatory subject in primary schools in Slovenia in the fifth grade can be attributed to this process.83
The other geo-political factor significant for determining general attitudes towards bilingualism with respect to English was the goal of being part of the Euro-Atlantic institutions. The process of European integration in the 1990s can be listed as one of the significant factors affecting the somewhat relaxed societal attitudes in Slovenia towards the use of foreign languages in general,
79 Government of the Republic of Slovenia: Draft Law Amending the Law on Primary School. EVA: 2011-3311-0007; No.: 00722-2/2011/7, Ljubljana, 14 July 2011, p. 3. 80 Law Amending the Law on Primary School (Zakon o spremembah in dopolnitvah Zakona o osnovni šoli (ZOsn-H)), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 87/2011 (2 November 2011), Article 6, amending Article 16. 81 Ibid., Article 12 adding a new Article 20.a. Telephone interview with Marija Mojca Maleš, Ministry of Education and Sport, Sector on Kindergartens and Primary Schools, 6 December 2011. 82 Programme of Primary School (Program osnovne šole), MŠŠ, adopted in 1998 and changed in 2008, available at http://www.mss.gov.si/si/solstvo/osnovnosolsko_izobrazevanje/program_osnovne_sole/ (25 April 2011). 83 Roter, 1993, pp. 221–223.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 19
and English in particular. Slovenia appeared to have undergone a phase of internationalisation, which seemed to have encompassed the society as a whole (i.e. it did not involve just political actors and the political elite). Accordingly, this internationalisation phase was reflected in broad societal approaches to languages, rather than solely in official language policies. If English used to be (politically) acceptable as a means of communication with foreigners in different situations in Slovenia (e.g. at international events such as conferences, or workshop, or at universities), this no longer appears to be the case. The ‘internationalisation phase’ seems to have come to an end.
The adoption of the Law on the Public Use of the Slovenian Language84 on 15 July 2004 marks a turning point in this respect. The Law was drafted as a response to the challenges of globalisation to the Slovenian language. In the wake of Slovenia’s entry into the European Union, the National Assembly adopted this legislation – the first law of its kind in Slovenia. While not changing the status of the Italian and the Hungarian languages as the official languages in a respective ethnically mixed area, the Law on the Public Use of the Slovenian Language was adopted with a view to protecting the Slovenian language. Slovenian was now deemed to be threatened by globalisation (particularly by English), and the legislation was adopted to address this threat.
Moreover, the national programme for language policy in the period between 2007 and 2011, as laid down in the resolution adopted by the National Assembly on 7 May 2007,85 depicts (in section 3.3.1) the following strategy for Slovenia’s language policy: With its appropriate measures and activities, the state guarantees, as a matter of its strategic responsibility, further development and use of Slovenian in all areas of public life within its frontiers as well as in international contacts. The Slovenian public sphere shall remain monolingual, and, in constitutionally defined areas, bilingual (alongside Italian and Hungarian, respectively); […]
In October 2005, pursuant to Articles 24 and 37 of the Law on the Public Use of the Slovenian Language, the Minister of Culture of the Republic of Slovenia issued an instruction on the manner
84 Law on the Public Use of the Slovenian Language (Zakon o javni rabi slovenščine), Official Gazettes of the Republic of Slovenia Nos. 86/2004, 91/2008 Constitutional Court Decision U-I-380/06-11, and 8/2010. 85 Resolution on the National Programme for Language Policy 2007–2011 (Resolucija o nacionalnem programu za jezikovno politiko 2007–2011 (ReNPJP0711)), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 43/2007 (18 May 2007).
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 20
of organising public events in which foreign languages are also used.86 The instruction allows for the use of a foreign language, in addition to Slovenian, “only at international events, intended primarily for foreign participants”.87 The instruction, however, also protects Slovenia’s other ‘autochthonous’ languages as it stipulates that “at public events organized for the population of municipalities in which the Italian or Hungarian national community lives, the language of the respective national community must be used in accordance with the provisions of sector-specific laws.”88
The national programme on language policy rejects “the theory and practice of the ‘melting pot’ […] as an absolutisation of the principle of free movement and a simultaneous rejection of any formation of neutralisation mechanisms in an individual state”.89 Further, the national programme on language policy upholds the “linguistic diversity as [an essential element of] cultural heritage of Europe and humanity”.90 Importantly, the application of such linguistic diversity is understood in the context of Europe and the European Union (rather than domestically – i.e. in Slovenia), where the Slovenian language should assume an equal position and an equal role as other languages of other European nations. In effect, multilingualism has thus been shifted to the international level, whereas the state role has been envisaged as that of primarily securing that this diversity at the international level is extended so as to include the Slovenian language. This could only be achieved, however, if the Slovenian language is respected and promoted domestically, as the sole and the most important language in the public sphere, alongside national minority languages in the ethnically mixed areas.
From the preparatory work leading to a draft of the Law on the Public Use of the Slovenian Language, and from the debates in the parliament on this legislation and in the media following its
86 Instruction on the manner of organising public events in which foreign languages are also used (Navodilo o načinu izvajanja javnih prireditev, na katerih se uporablja tudi tuji jezik), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 93/2005 (21 October 2005). 87 Ibid., Article 1. 88 Ibid., Article 4 (wrongly written as Article 3 in the Official Gazette, which includes two articles 3, this is the second one); translation is from the Third Slovenia's Report under the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, p. 32. 89 Resolution on the National Programme for Language Policy 2007–2011 (Resolucija o nacionalnem programu za jezikovno politiko 2007–2011 (ReNPJP0711)), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 43/2007 (18 May 2007), section 3.3.2. 90 Ibid.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 21
adoption, it is very clear that this law was a response to the challenges posed by globalisation in general, and the increasing use of English in particular. The new political context of Slovenia’s membership in the European Union – paradoxically – therefore presented a culmination of the fear that the Slovenian language was going to be used less frequently and in fewer spheres (with the use of language in science and higher education being recognised as particularly problematic in this respect). At the time when Slovenian acquired the status of an official language in the European Union and therefore became legally protected at a scale never experienced before, the domestic political elite and a group of prominent Slovenian linguists managed to prepare the very protective language law and secure its adoption in the National Assembly in July 2004 – just two and a half months after Slovenia’s entry into the European Union on 1 May 2004.
With this law, the Slovenian language has not only been confirmed as the official language in Slovenia, and, in ethnically mixed areas, with it also the Hungarian and the Italian language, respectively,91 but the law has re-defined the dominant language in Slovenia as a national language in the Republic of Slovenia. As such, the Slovenian language is to be actively protected and promoted by the Slovenian nation-state itself. Accordingly, this law sets out “fundamental rules on the public use of Slovenian as the official language in the Republic of Slovenia”.92 Regardless of this unprecedented emphasis on the (legal) protection of the Slovenian language, however, the lengthy process of socialisation in the area of minority protection appears to have been carried out to such an extent in the Slovenian society that this political U-turn with respect to the promotion and protection of the Slovenian language has not had any negative effects on the attitudes towards the Italian and the Hungarian languages in the political and legal system. Thus, the law also declares, as already mentioned, that in the ethnically mixed areas, “the public use of Italian and Hungarian, respectively, as official languages, is guaranteed in the manner provided for the public use of Slovenian by this law”.93 The law specifies that “all oral and written communication, in all areas of public life in the Republic of Slovenia”, is to be conducted in Slovenian, except where the Constitution recognises also Hungarian and Italian as official
91 The Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia, 1991, Article 11, and Law on the Public Use of the Slovenian Language, Article 1. 92 Law on the Public Use of the Slovenian Language, 2004, Article 2 (1). 93 Ibid., Article 3.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 22
languages.94 Slovenian is also the language in which Slovenia “represents itself in international relations”.95 Importantly, the law declared specifically that in Slovenia, “education in approved public programmes, from pre-school to the university level, is carried out in Slovenian.”96 This provision has in practice made it very difficult for universities to offer courses in English.
At the University of Ljubljana, for example, courses can be offered in English, but in principle only those courses that are also offered in Slovenian, which is very difficult, if not impossible, for financial reasons. Such a practice has developed as a result of a somewhat stricter application of the Statute of the University of Ljubljana, which clearly states that the “teaching language at the University is Slovenian”.97 Teaching in foreign language can be carried out, but in ‘exceptional circumstances’. These include: study programmes on foreign languages, “parts of study programmes if guest lecturers from abroad participate in them, or if they have a larger number of foreign students”, “study programmes if these programmes are also carried out in the Slovenian language”, and joint study programmes in which the University of Ljubljana is a partner, based on a special agreement with a foreign higher educational institution.98
At the Faculty of Social Sciences of the University of Ljubljana, this overall (political and partly also societal) negative trend towards the use of English has led to a significant reduction of courses being offered in English, mainly to Erasmus students – from approximately more than a hundred in 2005/2006 to some 35 in 2010/2011. Similarly, the evaluation criteria of researchers and university teachers were adapted in order to promote publications in Slovenian, though over time, this has been changed in favour of using more internationally recognised criteria, such as publications in the indexed journals and books published by the most prestigious international academic publishers.
94 Law on the Public Use of the Slovenian Language, 2004, Article 1(1). 95 Law on the Public Use of the Slovenian Language, 2004, Article 1(2). 96 Law on the Public Use of the Slovenian Language, 2004, Article 12(1). 97 Statute of the University of Ljubljana (Statut Univerze v Ljubljani), unofficial consolidated text, prepared and published on 3 May 2011, available at http://www.uni- lj.si/o_univerzi_v_ljubljani/predpisi_statut_ul_in_pravilniki/statut_univerze_v_ljubljani.aspx (8 May 2011), Article 110. 98 Ibid.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 23
Still, this emphasis on internationalisation of the academic production is not generally acceptable, and any debate about scholarly excellence always touches upon the issue that is referred to as ‘finding the right balance’ between developing terminology in Slovenian and simultaneously meeting the internationally recognised standards and criteria for academic excellence.99 This dual goal puts a lot of pressure on lecturers as they are facing increasing demands by students and the political elite that teaching materials should all be in Slovenian, and the general demands of the academic community dominated by the English-speaking publishing world.
Despite these changed perceptions and approaches towards languages at the societal level in Slovenia, multilingualism at the individual level has been simultaneously preserved. As already explained above, the Slovenian educational system has always promoted the obligatory learning of at least one ‘foreign world language’ (English, and in some cases German) already at the primary level. To learn and be fluent in at least one world foreign has been always a goal as well as a requirement for individuals applying for most of the posts in Slovenia’s public administration.
Previously (in the former Yugoslavia), multilingualism was extended to include also the Serbo- Croatian language. Whereas most Slovenians are still fluent in this language (or the national languages that developed in the individual former Yugoslav republics since they have declared their independence), this is no longer the case for younger generations, now studying at universities. As this was one of the languages in relation to which the perception of the ‘Slovenian smallness’ developed,100 a very negative attitude towards it was, and indeed is, present in the independent Slovenia since its formation as a new independent state.
The overall positive approach toward multilingualism and the promotion of individuals’ fluency in several languages can be attributed to several factors beyond any language-related policy. Such factors conducive to multilingualism in Slovenia include, among others, the fact that Slovenians have always visited neighbouring countries for reasons of commerce or tourism. Similarly, Slovenia
99 The author of this study was chairing the Faculty of Social Sciences Commission on Quality in the period between 2007 and 2009. She has also been a member of the University of Ljubljana's Strategic Commission since 2010, and a member of the Faculty of Social Sciences Senate between 2007 and 2009, and again since 2011. In all of these functions and settings, the author was and continues to be involved in such discussions. 100 See Roter, 2003.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 24
has been a popular tourist destination for German- and Italian-speaking tourists, either coming to or travelling through Slovenia for vacation. Another factor is related to the small size of the Slovenian market, which – for example – makes it impossible (i.e. not profitable) to dub films, documentaries and other programmes, or to translate all books. This has made it possible for Slovenians to be exposed to foreign languages, particularly English, German, Italian, (Serbo-) Croatian, but also French, Spanish and Hungarian.
Just recently, however, the public policy towards multilingualism has changed – i.e. it has been strengthened – only to change the policy again in 2011. In line with the European goals, the Slovenian Government (Ministry of Education) thus finally shifted its priority towards obligatory courses in two languages already in elementary schools. This change has been envisaged as a gradual one due to the lack of teachers and resources. It was first decided that in the school year 2013/14, “the second foreign language will be introduced as an obligatory subject for all pupils in the seventh grade, in accordance with the curriculum.”101 However, in the late 2011, Slovenia demonstrated again how problematic this issue is as the legislation was changed again so that the obligatory courses in foreign languages would not be introduced in 2013.102 This was deemed impossible, particularly due to the lack of qualified teachers.
Slovenia thus displays a somewhat ambiguous approach towards multilingualism and language diversity in general: to learn foreign languages has been the goal, but this goal has been adopted more as a necessity, rather than as a promotion of linguistic wealth and linguistic diversity at the societal level. Accordingly, when English was in some cases used on equal footing with Slovenian, or even given a priority for practical reasons (e.g. no translation was available or no funds were available to pay for a translation), legislation was adopted to protect the Slovenian language, rather than to promote language diversity.
101 Law Amending the Amended Law on Primary School (Zakon o spremembah Zakona o spremembah in dopolnitvah Zakona o osnovni šoli), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 107/2010 (29 December 2010), Article 1. 102 Law Amending the Law on Primary School (Zakon o spremembah in dopolnitvah Zakona o osnovni šoli (ZOsn-H)), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 87/2011 (2 November 2011).
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 25
This perception of Slovenia’s smallness and of being threatened for centuries by the neighbouring nationalisms103 seems to have influenced the country’s legislation addressing or touching upon the issues of diversity and diversity management, and not only the approach towards language diversity. A notable example of such attitudes are the changed goals of Slovenia’s primary education (in primary/elementary schools): if primary education before the 2007 amendments of the legislation had sought to “develop consciousness about belonging to the state and about national [i.e. ethnic, rather than civic] identity, and knowledge about history of Slovenia and its culture” (emphasis added),104 the current legislation as amended in 2007 includes the goal of developing (emphasis added) the “knowledge about history of Slovenians, their culture and heritage, and encouragement of civic responsibility.”105
The shift from ‘Slovenia’ to ‘Slovenians’, and from ‘its history’ to ‘their history’, or from ‘its culture’ to ‘their culture’, is a clear demonstration of a move away from recognising and promoting multiculturalism. Instead, the changed goals of primary education would seem to suggest a shift towards promoting the dominant (ethnically defined) nation, and its ethno-national history and culture. The only ‘acceptable’ and recognised linguistic heterogeneity to be promoted is the one that appertains to the Italian and Hungarian national communities in Slovenia: one of the goals of primary education is, among others, to develop the “ability for understanding of and communication in the Slovenian language, and in areas that are defined as ethnically mixed, also in the Italian and Hungarian language”.106 This goal, listed alongside other goals in Article 2 of the Law on Primary Schools, has remained unchanged although many other goals were reformulated or changed altogether in 2007.
The change in legislation from the emphasis on Slovenia to Slovenians (whereby the term Slovenians is generally understood and used as an ethnic, rather than a civic category in Slovenia) was not purely coincidental. If the legislation on primary education before the changes in 2007
103 See Roter, 2003, pp. 215–218. 104 Law on Primary School – Official Consolidated Text (Zakon o osnovni šoli (uradno prečiščeno besedilo) (ZOsn-UPB3)), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 81/2006 (31 July 2006), Article 2. 105 Law Amending the Law on Primary School (Zakon o spremembah in dopolnitvah Zakona o osnovni šoli), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 102/2007 (9 November 2007), Article 2, amending Article 2. 106 Ibid., and Law on Primary School – Official Consolidated Text (Zakon o osnovni šoli (uradno prečiščeno besedilo) (ZOsn-UPB3)), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 81/2006 (31 July 2006), Article 2.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 26
was intended to promote, among other goals, “mutual tolerance, respect of differences and co- operation with the others”,107 then the amended legislation, since 2007, depicts promotion of “respect and co-operation, acceptance of differences and mutual tolerance”.108 In effect, the promotion of diversity has been changed into accepting it, and respect of diversity has been ‘translated’ into the goal of educating for respect and co-operation. Moreover, the new legislation omits the previously existing goal of “getting to know other cultures and learn foreign languages”,109 which now exists only in the form of the goal to “develop ability to communicate in foreign languages”.110
In effect, therefore, Slovenia’s elementary educational system does not promote linguistic diversity. It promotes linguistic diversity only in ethnically mixed areas, in relation to the autochthonous Italian and Hungarian communities and their national languages. All other language-related goals are reduced to the promotion of learning ‘foreign languages’ – i.e. to multilingualism at the individual level. Accordingly, Slovenia has introduced changes with respect to possibilities and obligations of learning the second foreign language in primary school. The proposed changes of legislation on primary schools (in preparation in 2011) also envisage a possibility that a private primary school can be run in a foreign language, however with Slovenian being an obligatory course.111
1.4 The Hungarian language in Slovenia
Language diversity promotion in Slovenia also affects the Hungarian language, however only in the ethnically mixed area where the Hungarian national community traditionally resides. In this area,
107 Law on Primary School – Official Consolidated Text (Zakon o osnovni šoli (uradno prečiščeno besedilo) (ZOsn-UPB3)), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 81/2006 (31 July 2006), Article 2. 108 Law Amending the Law on Primary School (Zakon o spremembah in dopolnitvah Zakona o osnovni šoli), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 102/2007 (9 November 2007), Article 2, amending Article 2. 109 Law on Primary School – Official Consolidated Text (Zakon o osnovni šoli (uradno prečiščeno besedilo) (ZOsn- UPB3)), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 81/2006 (31 July 2006), Article 2. 110 Law Amending the Law on Primary School (Zakon o spremembah in dopolnitvah Zakona o osnovni šoli), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 102/2007 (9 November 2007), Article 2, amending Article 2. 111 Law Amending the Law on Primary School, Proposal (Zakon o spremembah in dopolnitvah Zakona o osnovni šoli, Predlog, EVA: 2011-3311-0007), 24 March 2011, http://www.mss.gov.si/fileadmin/mss.gov.si/pageuploads/zakonodaja/pdf/OS/Zakon_o_osnovni_soli_24_3_11.pdf (2 April 2011).
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 27
both languages (Slovenian and Hungarian) are official languages, and individuals have the right to use either of them in different situations they may find themselves in: in schools, in communication with any administrative organ, the judiciary etc. Furthermore, education in the Hungarian ethnically mixed area is bilingual for pupils of both nationalities – i.e. for ethnic Slovenians and for ethnic Hungarians. Both languages are obligatory, in public and private schools, at all levels – from bilingual kindergartens to primary and secondary schools in the Hungarian- Slovenian ethnically mixed area. According to the 1996 Law on Organisation and Financing of Education, the goals of Slovenia’s educational system are, among others, “to develop linguistic abilities and to raise awareness of the position of the Slovenian language as the language of the state of Slovenia; in areas, which are defined as ethnically mixed, in addition to the Slovenian language also to preserve and develop the Italian and Hungarian languages, respectively.”112
Accordingly, the Law on Primary Schools provides for primary schools “to carry out instruction, for all pupils, in the form of the following obligatory subjects: Slovenian and Italian or Hungarian in the ethnically mixed areas, a foreign language, history, society [and some 14 other subjects].”113 The obligatory courses in Slovenian and Italian or Hungarian in ethnically mixed areas have to be provided also by private primary schools.114
Promotion and protection of the Hungarian language (as well as of the Italian) extends also to the area of the media.115 Whereas the Law on the Media protects the Slovenian language,116 it also determines that “[i]f programme contents are intended for the Hungarian or Italian national community, the media provider can disseminate them in the language of the respective national
112 Law on Organisation and Financing of Education – Official Consolidated Text (Zakon o organizaciji in financiranju vzgoje in izobraževanja (uradno prečiščeno besedilo) (ZOFVI-UPB5)), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 16/2007 (23 February 2007), Article 2. 113 Law Amending the Law on Primary School (Zakon o spremembah in dopolnitvah Zakona o osnovni šoli (ZOsn-H)), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 87/2011 (2 November 2011), Article 6, amending Article 16. 114 Law Amending the Law on Primary School (Zakon o spremembah in dopolnitvah Zakona o osnovni šoli), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 102/2007 (9 November 2007), Article 10 (amending Article 28). 115 More on the media legislation in section 1.9.4 below. 116 Law on the Media – official consolidated text (Zakon o medijih (uradno prečiščeno besedilo) (ZMed-UPB1)), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 110/2006 (26 October 2006), part 2.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 28
community.”117 The editor-in-chief of any media of the Hungarian or Italian national community has to “provide a proof of his/her active knowledge of the Italian or Hungarian language”.118
A similar system of active knowledge of the language of the respective national community is in place for other public appointments in the ethnically mixed areas. Importantly, salaries of public employees in the ethnically mixed areas in, among others, the administrative units, the police, the judiciary, the media, as well as in the educational institutions, are increased by a certain percentage if the employee can speak the language of a respective national minority (national community). The ‘supplement for bilingualism’ (dodatek za dvojezičnost) for the employees in ‘bilingual’ municipalities, for example, is up to 6%,119 and most employees in these municipalities, for example, have been able to enjoy the highest percentage.120 This supplement, which is discussed in greater detail below,121 is seen by minority representatives as an important element in Slovenia’s efforts to promote bilingualism in the public domain.122 However, many minority members would unofficially complain that the application of this policy is far from satisfactory. In particular, many individuals who enjoy the highest supplement cannot speak the minority language fluently. The key problem is that there is no (independent) language test the results of which could serve as the basis for determining the scope of the bilingualism supplement. Hungarian minority representatives would keenly support any initiative on granting the supplement according to merits – i.e. based on independent language tests, rather than self- evaluation or some old certificates.123
1.5 Political and legal tradition in dealing with minorities and language
In Slovenia, there is a long political and legal tradition in dealing with minorities and languages, particularly with regard to minority languages (i.e. languages of both national communities).124
117 Ibid., Article 5 (7). 118 Ibid., Article 19. 119 I.e. up to 6 %, additional to their salary. 120 Personal interview with a governmental employee who wished to remain anonymous. Ljubljana, 12 May 2011. 121 See section 1.9.2. 122 Personal interview with Dr. László Göncz, Hungarian MP in the National Assembly, Ljubljana, 24 May 2011. There are two seats (out of 90) in the National Assembly that are reserved for the Hungarian and the Italian national community, respectively. As a very active member of the Hungarian community, Dr. László Göncz was first elected to the parliament in 2008, and again on 4 December 2011. 123 Ibid. 124 See also section 1.1 above.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 29
Slovenian endeavours for establishing minority protection in Yugoslavia were initially met with a lot of resentment and many obstacles, particularly in the form of homogenising tendencies and a commitment to creating and promoting one Yugoslav socialist culture.125 Later, Slovenian proposals on minority protection were assessed in terms of their practical effects on the sizeable Hungarian minorities in Croatia and Serbia (Vojvodina), and of course, in terms of the numerically very strong Albanian community in Kosovo.126 However, the denial of minority rights of persons belonging to the Slovenian minority in Austria in 1959, and Austria’s justification of its behaviour with reference to the lack of any minority protection in Yugoslavia, presented a turning point for the development of minority protection in Slovenia and Yugoslavia. The Slovenian Constitution of 1963 thus introduced some of the key elements of minority protection – such as the right to equality, or the right of minority members to education in their own language – that have remained in place to this date.127
In effect, therefore, Slovenia’s approach to minority protection was thus developed largely within a bilateral, transnational context, but partly also within the complex inter-ethnic composition within the former Yugoslavia (this was particularly obvious in the 1974 Yugoslav constitution, which paved the way for “considerable autonomy in the area of language policies”128).
1.6 Changes over time in legal and political thinking on minorities and languages
There have been two relatively significant changes over time in legal and political thinking on minorities and languages, and a third one appears to be under way in 2010 and 2011. Thus, the first important legal change with respect to minorities and languages occurred at the time of Slovenia’s independence in the early 1990s. Then, the constitutional status of the Hungarian and Italian national communities in Slovenia was downgraded from constitutive groups to national minorities. This has, above all, a symbolic significance as the actual substance of minority protection has not changed significantly in the wake of this constitutional change. In addition, the
125 Čurin Radovič, 2000, pp. 13–14. 126 Plut-Pregelj, 2000, pp. 60–61. 127 Čurin Radovič, 2000, p. 14. 128 Roter, 2003, p. 220.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 30
obligatory learning of Serbo-Croatian and the Cyrillic script from the fifth grade was abolished. With these changes, Slovenia was establishing itself as a new nation-state, different from, and no longer related to, the former Yugoslavia and other former Yugoslav republics. The formation of a nation-state implied that this was to be the first independent state of the Slovenian nation (forming the dominant community), and that other nationalities living in Slovenia were to assume the status of national minorities.129
The second major change in the legal and political thinking about ethnic heterogeneity occurred around the time of Slovenia’s entry into the European Union (on 1 May 2004), and it applied solely to the thinking about languages, rather than national minorities living in Slovenia. This change was caused by the pressures of globalisation in general, and by the fears related to Slovenia’s future existence as a nation-state in the European Union, in particular. The change manifested itself in an increased protection of the Slovenian language, rather than in changes with respect to the use of minority languages.130
The third change appears to be an ongoing one, and its actual manifestation in practice has not been entirely clear. This change appertains to the recognition of new national communities in the Republic of Slovenia. So far, this recognition has been carried out modestly, merely with the adoption of a declaration by the National Assembly, on 1 February 2011.131 Whereas this declaration stops short of calling for, or recognising, any attempt to guarantee any constitutional status of a national community/minority to persons belonging to these communities, it is significant as it is the first official political document in Slovenia that both recognises the existence of these communities, and calls for the authorities to establish a dialogue with representatives of these communities.
Indeed, in May 2011, the government of Slovenia adopted a decision on the establishment of a body – the Council of the Republic of Slovenia for issues of persons belonging to the nations of the
129 See also sections 1.1 and 1.3 above. 130 See also section 1.3 above. 131 Declaration on the situation of national communities of persons belonging to nations of the former SFRY in the Republic of Slovenia (Deklaracija Republike Slovenije o položaju narodnih skupnosti pripadnikov narodov nekdanje SFRJ v Republiki Sloveniji (DePNNS)), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 7/2011 (4 February 2011).
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 31
former SFRY living in Slovenia – which is envisaged in the Declaration as an advisory body addressing the issues of relevance to these new national communities and persons belonging to them.132 These developments demonstrate the willingness of the Republic of Slovenia to take a more active role in addressing those issues of ethnic diversity in Slovenia that pertain to the new national communities, composed of individuals belonging to the Croatian, Bosniac, Serbian, Montenegrin, Albanian, and Macedonian national communities. This is a very significant change in Slovenia’s politics, given all the previous rejections of any proposal to address these issues.
1.7 Characteristics of the legal system
Slovenia’s legal system in general can be characterised as in constant flux, and as notably non- transparent. The vast majority of laws have undergone at least one change, and it is not uncommon that a law is changed several times, sometimes by the same parliamentary sitting, and most certainly after every general election, by the newly elected MPs. Every government appears to be seeing itself as more efficient if it prepares more draft laws and if it manages to run those through the parliamentary procedures. The National Assembly, on the other hand, seems overburdened with the legislative process and with the amount of legislation in the legislative process. This tends to lead to many lengthy sessions, or rather many special sessions at which laws are rushed through the parliamentary process according to the so-called special procedure. All this makes the legislation in general non-transparent and very complex, even for experts.
An additional factor contributing to the lack of transparency and to the complexity of Slovenia’s legislation is the way laws are being changed: namely, with the adoption of new laws amending the original law. This means that – unless there has been a request by the National Assembly for its legal department to prepare an official consolidated text of a law with all its amendments – only a simple analysis of some more complex laws requires a lot of time and specialised expertise. Although all laws are publicly available on-line, with a free-of-charge access to the Official Gazette, the legislation is far from transparent and easily comprehensible. Also, there are many legal acts (e.g. regulations) adopted by the government to implement individual provisions in a law. All this
132 At its 134th regular session, on 12 May 2011.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 32
certainly does not contribute to the rule of law and trust in the legal system and, indeed, in the legislative (as well as the executive) bodies of the Republic of Slovenia.
Although legislation in general lacks stability, this cannot be equally argued for the legislation on minority protection. The key parameters of minority protection as it applies to the Italians and the Hungarians have remained unchanged. The changes have typically occurred due to the mainstreaming approach to minority protection which is in place in Slovenia for autochthonous national communities. This so-called ‘minority protection mainstreaming approach’ means that – with a few exceptions (such as the Law on Self-governing National Communities, or the Law on the Roma Community, which are both entirely applicable to minority protection) – minority protection has been specified and established in general laws. Such laws include, when applicable, a provision on how individual issues are to be regulated in the ethnically mixed areas, or with respect to the national communities, including the Roma where relevant. Consequently, minority protection has been established in tens of laws.133 Whenever these laws are amended, the legislation that applies to minority protection therefore also changes – although it is fair to add that those changes generally do not tend to be about minority rights.
Whereas the general approach towards establishing minority protection as part of the legislation on individual issue-areas (such as the media or education) has been praised in the scholarly community, some minority representatives have been increasingly unhappy about the numerous laws that make minority protection non-transparent and less effective. These representatives would wish to see – perhaps somewhat paradoxically – a new, special law adopted dealing exclusively with minority rights.134 Some representatives of the Hungarian community in particular
133 The governmental Office for National Minorities (note that this is its official English name although the literal translation would read the Office for Nationalities – Urad za narodnosti) lists 56 such laws that are, in addition to the constitution and international documents of which Slovenia is a state party, particularly relevant for national communities. The list is available at http://www.uvn.gov.si/si/zakonodaja_in_dokumenti/pravni_predpisi_posebna_zascita_za_italijansko_in_madzars ko_narodno_skupnost/ (30 April 2011). 134 Empirical research by the author. The author has been researching Slovenia’s national minorities and ethnic diversity in general, for more than 15 years. She was a researcher in the research projects on Perception of Slovenian integration policy (V5-0780-02, 2002–2004 and 2005–2007; Institute for Ethnic Issues (Ljubljana) and Faculty of Social Sciences, headed by M. Komac), she has served a member (independent expert) of the Sub- commission on minority protection in the Republic of Slovenia, she has been elected independent expert on minority issues to serve as a member of the Advisory Committee of the Framework Convention for the Protection
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 33
have expressed their view that it would be much better if Slovenia (i.e. the National Assembly) adopted an ‘umbrella’ law on the protection of national communities. The key argument has been the goal to increase the transparency of legislation: it is believed that one single law could contribute to legislative transparency. An example of this approach has been the adoption of a law on the Roma community, which complements the so-called ‘mainstreaming approach’. The problem is, however, that such proposals for an ‘umbrella’ law have been made based on the assumption that there are so many provisions on minority protection in so many different (and changing) laws that it is impossible to oversee their implementation. In effect, therefore, such proposals call for yet more legislation because there are already too many legal norms that are not implemented in a way that would make national communities satisfied. What such proposals would also appear to suggest is the fact that the problem with regard to Slovenia’s non- transparent and constantly changing legislation, and its ineffective implementation, has been experienced by Slovenia’s national minorities.
1.8 Languages covered by legislation
Languages directly covered and regulated by national legislation and the relevant international treaties (the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages and the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities) are:
1) Slovenian: it is the language of the dominant nation. It enjoys the status of the official language in the state. As such, it is to be used in Slovenia domestically and in its international relations. In addition to the provisions in the Slovenian Constitution,135 and the Law on the Public Use of the Slovenian Language,136 its use is regulated in seventy other laws, such as those on higher
of National Minorities. Elected in 2010, she has regularly visited ethnically mixed areas in Slovenia and talked to minority representatives at the local level and in the National Assembly, she has been involved in study visits to those areas within the course on International Minority Protection she teaches together with M. Komac, and she has been regularly in touch with state officials responsible for, or involved in minority protection in Slovenia. All information gained, and views formed, on such occasions will be hereafter refered to as 'empirical research by the author'. 135 The Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia, Article 11. 136 Law on the Public Use of the Slovenian Language (Zakon o javni rabi slovenščine), Official Gazettes of the Republic of Slovenia Nos. 86/2004, 91/2008 Constitutional Court Decision U-I-380/06-11, and 8/2010. See also section 1.3 above.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 34
education, foreign affairs, asylum, foreigners, administrative procedure, courts and many others.137
2) Italian and Hungarian: they are the languages of the autochthonous national minorities living in Slovenia that are constitutionally recognised as national communities. These languages enjoy the constitutional status of official languages, together with the Slovenian language, in the respective ethnically mixed areas.138 The use of these minority languages is further regulated by any law that applies to and is to be implemented in the ethnically mixed areas. This is the case for both specific legislation on minority protection and general legislation regulating areas, such as education, or political representation, the media, public administration, administrative procedure, and many others. The Slovenian legal system provides for the equality of the Slovenian and Italian/Hungarian languages in the respective area where the national community speaking the language lives traditionally (i.e. is an autochthonous community).
3) Romany: Slovenia’s legislation also refers to the Romany language, but it does not regulate its use. Instead, the national legislation - e.g. the Law on the Roma Community – provides for the state responsibility to encourage the “preservation and development of the Romany language […].”139 This is a step forward from the governmental approach to the Romany language in the 1990s. In this respect, the Advisory Committee of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities observed in 2002 – with regard to the Roma community in Slovenia – that at “at present they have no possibility of using their mother tongue in their relations with the administrative authorities”, and suggested “that the Slovene authorities, in consultation with the Roma, should seek to identify the needs in this field and to meet them”.140
Such a different approach towards the Romany language is a result of the lack of any lengthy tradition with respect to the protection of the Roma minority in Slovenia. Whereas minority protection of the Italian and Hungarian communities dates back to the 1960s, including the
137 The full list can be found at http://www.mk.gov.si/si/zakonodaja_in_dokumenti/veljavni_predpisi/ slovenski_jezik/podrocni_zakoni/ (17 January 2011). 138 The Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia, Article 11. 139 Law on the Roma Community (Zakon o romski skupnosti v Republiki Sloveniji), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 33/2007 (13 April 2007), Article 4 (3). 140 FCNM Advisory Committee’s Opinion on Slovenia 2002, paragraphs 57 and 58, respectively.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 35
introduction of bilingualism in Slovenia in 1962,141 the Roma community has only been (more or less) systematically addressed in the legislation since the mid-1990s. This is for a number of reasons, including the status of the Roma community as a double minority – i.e as an ethnic group/national minority and as a social minority.142 Accordingly, the governmental programmes for the Roma – with the first one adopted in 1995143 and the most recent one in 2010144 – seek to address, first and foremost, the socio-economic problems of the Roma. Programmes seeking to promote the preservation and development of the Roma minority culture have been of somewhat secondary importance although the government did finance, and continues to do so, the functioning of the Roma media, publications and other activities intended to help the Roma preserve their ethnic identity.145 This has not been easy because the intra-Roma ethnic and linguistic differences have created a number of factions in the Roma community, which is still in the process of political socialisation.146 More importantly, resulting from their different origins, the Roma in Slovenia do not speak one language. A stark difference exists between the Roma living in the area of Prekmurje (i.e. the same region where the Hungarians traditionally live) and those in the region of Dolenjska (in the South East of Slovenia). These differences have been one of the factors contributing to the lack of specific national educational programmes and learning tools on the Romany language. In such circumstances, the standardisation of the Romany language147 could further antagonise the relations within the Roma community in Slovenia.
141 For a detailed account of the development of minority protection in Slovenia see Roter, 2003, pp. 223–226. 142 On the lack their equal opportunities in terms of their enjoyment of economic and social rights see Amnesty International, 2011. 143 Programme of measures for assistance to the Roma in the Republic of Slovenia (Program ukrepov za pomoč Romom v Republiki Sloveniji), adopted by the Government of the Republic of Slovenia, at its 171st session, on 30 November 1995, available at http://www.uvn.gov.si/fileadmin/uvn.gov.si/pageuploads/pdf_datoteke/Romi_1995.pdf (30 March 2011). 144 National programme of measures for the Roma, by the Government of the Republic of Slovenia, in the period 2010–2015 (Nacionalni program ukrepov za Rome Vlade Republike Slovenije za obdobje 2010–2015), Ljubljana, 18 March 2010, available at http://www.uvn.gov.si/fileadmin/uvn.gov.si/pageuploads/pdf_datoteke/Program_ukrepov.pdf (20 May 2011). 145 For a detailed account of different programmes for the Roma community see the website of the Office National Communities, available at http://www.uvn.gov.si/si/manjsine/romska_skupnost/ (17 March 2011). 146 Komac, 2007. 147 Resolution on the National Programme for Language Policy 2007-2011 (Resolucija o nacionalnem programu za jezikovno politiko 2007–2011 (ReNPJP0711)), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 43/2007 (18 May 2007), chapter 4, section 4.1.2, point e).
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 36
Indirectly, there are other languages mentioned in the Slovenian national legislation. Their use is primarily restricted to the education system, in the form of obligatory or elective subjects at different educational levels. Some of these languages are particularly relevant in the context of managing ethnic/national and linguistic diversity148 in the Republic of Slovenia. Among these languages, particularly relevant for ethnic communities living in Slovenia, are German (listed, together with Slovenian and English, as an obligatory subject in primary schools to be taught as a ‘foreign language’),149 Croatian, Macedonian and Serbian – which are all on the list (alongside English, French, Italian, Latin, German, Russian and Spanish) of elective subjects of primary schools to be taught for three years.150 There is, however, no further legislation on the use of these languages in the context of minority protection or linguistic rights of persons belonging to ethnic groups characterised by one of these non-Slovenian mother tongues.
1.9 Regulation in relation to minorities and languages
In Slovenia, regulation in relation to minorities and languages is both very complex and extensive. Minority protection as it applies to the Italian and Hungarian national communities has been mainstreamed in the national legislation. This is because one of the key aspects of minority protection is indeed the use of minority languages. As a “special form of minority autonomy”,151 the Hungarian and Italian self-governing national communities play an important role with regard to minority protection in the area such as education, culture, and the media.
1.9.1 Constitutional provisions
Slovenia’s 1991 Constitution includes substantive provisions on languages, national minorities and minority protection, as well as on equality and non-discrimination. With respect to equality, “everyone shall be guaranteed equal human rights and fundamental freedoms irrespective of
148 See section 1.3 above. 149 The full list of obligatory subjects in the 9-year primary school can be found at http://www.mss.gov.si/si/solstvo/osnovnosolsko_izobrazevanje/program_osnovne_sole/obvezni_predmeti_v_dev etletni_osnovni_soli/ (15 January 2011). 150 These are the so-called type A elective subjects (three-year subjects). The full list can be found at http://www.mss.gov.si/si/solstvo/osnovnosolsko_izobrazevanje/program_osnovne_sole/izbirni_predmeti_v_deve tletni_osnovni_soli/ (15 January 2011). 151 FCNM Slovenia’s Report 2000, paragraph 108.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 37
national origin, race, sex, language, religion, political, or other conviction, material standing, birth, education, social status, disability, or any other personal circumstance”, and “[a]ll are equal before the law.”152 In the Republic of Slovenia, “[e]veryone has the right to freely express affiliation with his nation or national community, to foster and give expression to his culture, and to use his language and script.”153 Although the official language in Slovenia is Slovenian, and in “municipalities where Italian or Hungarian national communities reside” also Italian/Hungarian,154 “[e]veryone has the right to use his language and script in a manner provided by law in the exercise of his rights and duties and in procedures before state and other authorities performing a public function.”155
The Constitution provides the basic guidelines for the country’s approach towards minorities and minority protection. In particular, it sets out the determination of the state to “protect and guarantee the rights of the autochthonous Italian and Hungarian national communities.”156 These traditional, territorial national minorities and persons belonging to them shall enjoy special rights “to use their national symbols freely”, “to establish organisations and develop economic, cultural, scientific, and research activities, as well as activities in the field of public media and publishing”, “to education and schooling in their own languages, as well as the right to establish and develop such education and schooling”, and “to foster relations with their nations of origin and their respective countries”, where the “state shall provide material and moral support for the exercise of these rights.”157
Importantly, the constitutional provisions also provide for the organisation and participation of persons belonging to these national communities in the decision-making processes. In particular, persons belonging to these communities have the right to “establish their own self-governing communities in the geographic areas where they live”, both national communities “shall be directly represented in representative bodies of local self-government and in the National
152 Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia 1991, Article 14. This provision was amended – by the Constitutional Act Amending Article 14 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia (Ustavni zakon o spremembi 14. člena Ustave Republike Slovenije), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 69/2004 (24 June 2004), which was adopted on 15 June 2004 and entered into force on 23 June 2004 – so that 'disability' was added to the list of explicitly prohibited grounds of discrimination. 153 The Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia 1991, Article 61. 154 Ibid., Article 11. 155 Ibid., Article 62. 156 Ibid., Article 5. 157 Ibid., Article 64.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 38
Assembly”, and “[l]aws, regulations, and other general legal acts that concern the exercise of the constitutionally provided rights and the position of the national communities exclusively, may not be adopted without the consent of representatives of these national communities.”158 Crucially, given the small number of members of the communities,159 “[t]he rights of both national communities and their members shall be guaranteed irrespective of the number of members of these communities.”160 The Constitution further specifies the right of national communities to representation in the National Assembly. The latter is composed of ninety deputies, out of which “[o]ne deputy of the Italian and one deputy of the Hungarian national communities shall always be elected to the National Assembly.”161
Whereas the Constitution mentions also the Roma community in Slovenia,162 it stops short of providing for any specific rights. Instead, it refers to the already existing ‘regulation by law’ of the “status of special rights of the Romany community living in Slovenia”.163 Such a law was adopted by the National Assembly in 2007.164
Minority protection in Slovenia is therefore constitutionally established, but only for the two autochthonous national minorities (termed as ‘national communities’), specifically named and listed in the Constitution. As the Italian and Hungarian national communities are above all linguistically different from the dominant nation, minority protection includes norms on the use (and protection) of minority languages (Italian and Hungarian). The Romany language does not have a status of an official language, but the Law on the Roma Community in the Republic of Slovenia declares that the “Republic of Slovenia encourages preservation and development of the Romany language, as well as cultural, informative and publishing activities of the Roma community.”165
158 Ibid. 159 See section 1.1 above. 160 The Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia 1991, Article 64. 161 Ibid., Article 80. 162 Ibid., Article 65. 163 Ibid. 164 Law on the Roma community (Zakon o romski skupnosti v Republiki Sloveniji), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 33/2007 (13 April 2007). 165 Law on the Roma community (Zakon o romski skupnosti v Republiki Sloveniji), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 33/2007 (13 April 2007), Article 4 (3).
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 39
1.9.2 Language legislation
As explained by Slovenia in its initial report on the implementation of the European Charter for Regional or Minority languages (emphasis in original):166 The starting point for the protection of national minorities is defined in the Republic of Slovenia by the notions of ethnically mixed area (an area historically settled by national communities) and a series of collective rights (the rights to the use of language in private and public life) recognised by the state regardless of the number or the proportion of the speakers of regional or minority languages in the ethnically mixed territory. National communities (minorities) as objectively existing entities enjoy collective rights (among which the main right is the right to use one’s language). It depends on the individuals, on the members of national communities when and to what extent they will exercise the language rights accorded to them. It has to be pointed out that the implementation of language rights of national minorities (communities) directly concerns the members of the majority nation. The members of the majority nation are required to have bilingual documents [note, however, that this characteristics has been eased since 2005] and to learn the minority language at school.
Historically, there was no specific language legislation in Slovenia until the adoption of the Law on the Public Use of the Slovenian Language167 on 15 July 2004.168 As seen in section 1.9.1 above, the status of Slovenian and of the languages of both national communities is and has been regulated by the Constitution and specified in many different laws. Indeed, the Slovenian system for minority protection, including its linguistic aspects, can be described as “minority protection mainstreaming”.169 Accordingly, any legal act adopted in the Republic of Slovenia will be drafted with a view to assessing its effects on national communities, including the use of their language. Any legislation applicable to the national communities, or to the areas where they live, includes appropriate provisions on the equal use of the majority and the minority languages (in the designated areas where the minorities have traditionally lived). Consequently, the list of laws regulating the use of Italian and Hungarian is very long.
166 Initial Periodical Report presented to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe in accordance with Article 15 of the Charter: Slovenia, Strasbourg, 18 March 2002, MIN-LANG/PR (2002) 2, p. 8. 167 Law on the Public Use of the Slovenian Language (Zakon o javni rabi slovenščine), Official Gazettes of the Republic of Slovenia Nos. 86/2004, 91/2008 Constitutional Court Decision U-I-380/06-11, and 8/2010. 168 See section 1.3 above. 169 See also section 1.7 above.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 40
In accordance with the constitutional provisions on national communities and on the official languages in Slovenia, specified in the Constitution170 and in the special law on the public use of Slovenian,171 Italian and Hungarian are used on an equal footing with Slovenian in both ethnically mixed areas, which are defined in the statutes of municipalities. Thus, personal (e.g. passports,172 identity cards173) and other documents in these areas are also issued in the language of the respective national minority. Personal names of persons belonging to the Italian and Hungarian national community are spelled out according to the Italian/Hungarian alphabet and form “if the member of the national community does not declare differently.”174 Bilingualism applies and is used for all toponyms (names of places/areas, settlements, streets) and institutions.175
In the judicial system, both the majority and the minority (Italian/Hungarian) language can be used equally in the ethnically mixed areas. As explained by the Republic of Slovenia, “[t]his means that in the functioning of the judicial and state authorities and of the administration in ethnically mixed areas the use of the language of national minority is guaranteed throughout the procedure provided that one of the parties uses that language.”176 Provisions on the equal use of the majority and minority languages in both ethnically mixed areas “are included in laws and rules governing the functioning of the administration, state and judicial authorities (courts, public prosecutors’ offices and notary offices) as well as the statutes of municipalities in ethnically mixed areas.”177 Such equality of languages (Slovenian and Italian or Hungarian) is limited – as is Slovenia’s minority protection in general – to the ethnically mixed area: i.e. a party to a judicial procedure has to live in the ethnically mixed area and this person has to use the minority mother tongue.
170 See section 1.9.1 above. 171 Law on the Public Use of the Slovenian Language (Zakon o javni rabi slovenščine), Official Gazettes of the Republic of Slovenia Nos. 86/2004, 91/2008 Constitutional Court Decision U-I-380/06-11, and 8/2010, Article 3. 172 Law on Passports – Official Consolidate Text (Zakon o potnih listinah (uradno prečiščeno besedilo) (ZPLD-1-UPB4)), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 29/2011 (18 April 2011), Article 13. 173 Law on Identity Card (Zakon o osebni izkaznici), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 35/2011 (13 May 2011), Article 7. 174 Law on Personal Name (Zakon o osebnem imenu), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 20/2006 (24 February 2006), Article 5. 175 Law on Designating Areas and Naming and Marking Settlements, Streets and Buildings (Zakon o določanju območij ter o imenovanju in označevanju naselij, ulic in stavb), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 25/2008 (14 March 2008), Articles 9, 20 and 23. 176 FCNM Slovenia’s Report 2000, paragraph 34. 177 Ibid.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 41
Thus, the Law on Courts, adopted by the National Assembly on 24 March 1994 (and later amended several times), has made it possible to use both languages in courts in the ethnically mixed areas. In general, the Law on Courts stipulates178 that the language used in courts is Slovenian, but in the Slovenian-Italian and Slovenian-Hungarian ethnically mixed areas, “the business of the court shall also be conducted in the Italian or the Hungarian language if a party who lives in that territory uses the Italian or the Hungarian language” and that “expenses connected with the use in court of the Italian or Hungarian language shall be borne by the Republic of Slovenia”.179
Further, if a court of a higher instance decides in matters that have been dealt with by a court of a lower instance also in Italian or Hungarian, the court of a higher instance “issues its ruling also translated in the Italian or Hungarian language.”180 If this procedure involves the presence of parties, both languages can be used if a party living in the ethnically mixed area actually uses the minority language in court.181 In ethnically mixed areas, the president of the Supreme Court “appoints the necessary number of adjudicators who actively master the Italian/Hungarian language.”182
The Court Rules183 include a special chapter (Chapter 5, Article 60–69) titled ‘Operation of courts in the areas where the Italian and Hungarian national communities live’, and several other provisions on the use of minority languages in courts in Slovenia, including a provision stipulating that all written signs in courts (court buildings) “are also in the Italian/Hungarian language.”184 As summarised by the Republic of Slovenia in its initial report under the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, the Court Rules guarantee the following: In the event that there is only one party to the proceeding, or if both parties use one language, the proceeding is conducted in that language. If there are two parties to the
178 Law on Courts – Official Consolidated Text (Zakon o sodiščih (uradno prečiščeno besedilo) (ZS-UPB4)), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 94/2007 (16 October 2007), Article 5. 179 These translations are from FCNM Slovenia’s Report 2000, paragraph 84, footnote 59. 180 Law on Courts – Official Consolidated Text from 2007, Article 5. 181 Ibid. 182 Ibid., Article 45. 183 Court Rules (Sodni red), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 17/95 (18 March 1995), with amendments published in Official Gazettes Nos. 35/98, 91/98, 22/2000, 113/2000, 62/2001, 88/2001, 102/2001, 22/2002, 15/2003, 75/2004, 138/2004, 74/2005, 5/2007, 82/2007, 16/2008, 93/2008, 110/2008, 117/2008, 119/2008 and 22/2010. 184 Ibid., Article 30.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 42
proceeding using a different language, the proceeding is conducted in two languages. In such event, the records and orders or decisions of the court are also bilingual.185
According to the Law on State Prosecution, adopted on 29 September 1994, “[S]tate prosecution offices conduct business in the Slovenian language.”186 In the Slovenian-Italian and Slovenian- Hungarian ethnically mixed areas, however, “state prosecution offices conduct business also in Italian or Hungarian language if the relevant procedure before the court or any other state organ is conducted in that language or if a party living in that area uses that language when communicating with the state prosecution.”187 Although the Law on State Prosecution has been amended several times, this provision was adopted already in 1994 and it has not been changed since.
With regard to language requirements in the administration in Slovenia, the Public Administration Act (first adopted by the National Assembly on 31 May 2002, and subsequently amended several times) determines that the “[o]fficial language in the administration is Slovenian”, and in those “areas of municipalities where the autochthonous Italian/Hungarian national community lives, the official language in the administration is also Italian/Hungarian.”188 In the ethnically mixed areas the administration therefore “conducts business also in the language of a respective national community.”189 “If a party in a procedure uses a language of a national community, the administration carries out the procedure in the language of the national community and issues legal and other acts in the procedure in Slovenian and in the language of the national community.”190 In such cases, any decision by an appellate organ also needs to be in the same language.191
Importantly, the Public Administration Act now also determines that a party has to be informed by a respective organ about the right to use Italian/Hungarian before the beginning of the
185 FCNM Slovenia’s Report 2000, paragraph 85. 186 Law on State Prosecution – Official Consolidated Text (Zakon o državnem tožilstvu (uradno prečiščeno besedilo) (ZDT-UPB5)), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 94/2007 (16 October 2007), Article 6. 187 Ibid. 188 Public Administration Act – Official Consolidated Text (Zakon o državni upravi (uradno prečiščeno besedilo) (ZDU-1- UPB4)), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 113/2005 (16 December 2005), Article 4. 189 Ibid. 190 Ibid. 191 Ibid.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 43
procedure.192 This provision was not originally included in the Act when it was adopted in 2002; it was added in 2005 when Article 4 was also slightly reformulated.193
As already mentioned above,194 all public employees in the ethnically mixed areas are eligible to receive the so-called ‘supplement for bilingualism’ (dodatek za dvojezičnost). As specified in the Public Sector Salary System Act (official translation of the law), “[t]he supplement for bilingualism belongs to public employees and judges, state prosecutors and state attorneys who work in those areas of municipalities in which the Italian or Hungarian national community lives, where the Italian or Hungarian languages is also an official language, if the knowledge of the language of a national community is a requirement for a position or a function.”195
In the judiciary, judges, state prosecutors and state attorneys are entitled to this supplement of up to 6% to their basic salary. In the education sector, however, this supplement is between 12 and 15% for teachers and other professional employees in the primary and secondary schools and in kindergartens. The same percentage (12–15%) applies to journalists of the Radio-television Slovenia, whereas all other public employees are entitled to the supplement of 3 to 6%.196 The actual percentage for an individual’s salary is determined by his or her supervisor and by the relevant judicial bodies for the employees in the judiciary. This decision is “based on the required knowledge of the language of a national community and on the actual use of this knowledge at the working place.”197
As already pointed out in section 1.4 above, there appears to be agreement among many persons belonging to national communities, as well as by some governmental officials, that the way in which this supplement has been implemented in practice is not satisfactory. In particular, it is
192 Ibid. 193 Law Amending the Law Amending the Public Administration Act (Zakon o spremembah in dopolnitvah Zakona o državni upravi (ZDU-1D)), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 93/2005 (21 October 2005), Article 1 amending Article 4. 194 See section 1.4. 195 Law on the System of Salaries in the Public Sector/Public Sector Salary System Act – Official Consolidated Text (Zakon o sistemu plač v javnem sektorju (uradno prečiščeno besedilo) (ZSPJS-UPB13)), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 108/2009 (28 December 2009), Article 28, paragraph (1). 196 Ibid., Article 28, paragraph (2). 197 Ibid., Article 28, paragraph (3).
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 44
obvious to anyone involved in Slovenia’s system of minority protection that this supplement is enjoyed by many individuals who cannot use, orally or in writing, the language of a respective national community.
1.9.3 Education legislation
The education of persons belonging to one of the autochthonous national communities is regulated with a special ‘umbrella’ law,198 and as part of several other laws on kindergartens, primary schools, gymnasia (high schools) etc. As explained by the Republic of Slovenia in its second report under the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, this 2001 ‘umbrella’ Law Guaranteeing Special Rights of Members of the Italian and Hungarian National Communities in the Field of Education “regulates comprehensively all the specialities of education for the needs of both national communities”, which – together with several other means of including minority representatives in the process of the implementation of Slovenia’s legislation on education – “allows for the specific conditions in which national communities and their members live to be taken into account.”199
There are different systems in place with respect to education and schooling in minority languages – a bilingual in the Hungarian ethnically mixed area (where both Hungarian and Slovenian children in mixed schools are simultaneously and jointly (in the same classes) educated in both languages and where both languages are used as languages of instruction and as compulsory subjects for all pupils), and a mono-lingual in the Italian ethnically mixed area where Italian schools are set up, but all children (i.e. those in Italian and Slovenian schools) in the area have to learn both languages although there is only one language of instruction (either Slovenian or Italian).200 This difference between the education systems in both ethnically mixed areas dates back to the very beginnings of the minority protection system in the former Socialist Republic of Slovenia, at the end of the 1950s, and is due to the special geopolitical circumstances which existed in the wake of World War II.201
198 Law Guaranteeing Special Rights of Members of the Italian and Hungarian National Communities in the Field of Education (Zakon o posebnih pravicah italijanske in madžarske narodne skupnosti na področju vzgoje in izobraževanja), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 35/2001 (11 May 2001). 199 FCNM Slovenia’s Second Report 2004, p. 24. 200 FCNM Slovenia’s Second Report 2004, p. 33. 201 See section 1.1 above.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 45
As analysed in greater detail above,202 Slovenia’s educational system at the level of primary schools, in both ethnically mixed areas, aims to help pupils “develop literacy and ability to understand, communicate and converse in the Slovenian language, and in areas defined as ethnically mixed also in Italian and Hungarian language, respectively”.203 The different educational systems in both ethnically mixed areas require different regulation in the relevant legislation. The Law on Primary School thus provides for Slovenian to be the language of instruction, and for Italian to be the “language of instruction in primary schools in the language of a national community”, and for Slovenian and Hungarian to be the language of instruction “in bilingual primary schools.”204 The law also prescribes obligatory learning of the Italian language for pupils in Slovenian primary schools, and of Slovenian in Italian primary schools.205 All primary schools in ethnically mixed areas – public or private – must offer obligatory courses of Italian/Hungarian.206
All such legislation affects the organisation of instruction in primary schools in the ethnically mixed areas. The Law on Primary School allows, in the first and the second triad (grades 1 to 6), for Slovenian, Italian and Hungarian in ethnically mixed areas, when studied by pupils as a second language, to be taught by teachers not specialised in teaching languages.207 Both national communities are also represented in task forces responsible for the preparation and printing of textbooks and workbooks.208
At the level of secondary (high) schools, the legislation takes into account the special interests of both national communities. Thus, Slovenia’s gymnasia aim to, among other things, “provide the knowledge about the Slovenian language and literature, and in areas defined as ethnically mixed,
202 See section 1.3 above. 203 Law on Primary School (Zakon o osnovni šoli), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 12/1996 (29 February 1996), Article 2. 204 Law on Primary School – Official Consolidated Text (Zakon o osnovni šoli (uradno prečiščeno besedilo) (ZOsn- UPB3)), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 81/2006 (31 July 2006), Article 6. 205 Ibid. 206 Ibid., Articles 16 and 28. 207 Law Amending the Law on Primary School (Zakon o spremembah in dopolnitvah Zakona o osnovni šoli (ZOsn-H)), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 87/2011 (2 November 2011), Article 20, amending Article 38. 208 FCNM Slovenia’s Second Report 2004, p. 43.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 46
also about the Italian/Hungarian language and literature”.209 The language of instruction is regulated in the same manner as in primary schools – i.e. there is the same differentiation between monolingual high schools (gymnasia) for the Italians and bilingual in the Slovenian- Hungarian ethnically mixed areas.210 The same regulation of the use of Slovenian, Italian and Hungarian languages also applies to kindergartens in ethnically mixed areas.211
1.9.4 Media legislation
As seen above,212 the promotion and protection of the Hungarian national community and of the Hungarian language (as well as of the Italian) extends also to the media. According to the 2001 Law on the Media, the Republic of Slovenia supports and promotes such contents of the media that are, among other things, important for the realisation of the right to information of persons belonging to the Hungarian and Italian national communities.213 The media can be disseminated in the language of a national community (Hungarian or Italian) “[i]f programme contents are intended for the Hungarian or Italian national community”.214 Slovenia’s audio-visual production is originally in the Slovenian language, whereas audio-visual “production intended for the Hungarian and Italian national community is in their language.”215 Editor-in-chief of any media of the Hungarian or Italian national community has to “provide a proof of his/her active knowledge of the Italian or Hungarian language”.216
Furthermore, and perhaps most important for the protection and promotion of the Hungarian national community in Slovenia, the Law on the Media established the concept of radio and television programmes of special interest. Such programmes of “public and cultural interest of the Republic of Slovenia”, constituting a substantial part of the public service of the Radio-television
209 Law on Gymnasia – Official Consolidated Text (Zakon o gimnazijah (uradno prečiščeno besedilo) (ZGim-UPB1)), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 1/2007 (5 January 2007), Article 2. 210 Ibid., Article 8. 211 Law on Kindergartens – Official Consolidated Text (Zakon o vrtcih (uradno prečiščeno besedilo) (ZVrt-UPB2)), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 100/2005 (10 November 2005), Article 5. 212 See section 1.4 above. 213 Law on the Media – official consolidated text (Zakon o medijih (uradno prečiščeno besedilo) (ZMed-UPB1)), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 110/2006 (26 October 2006), Article 4 (1). 214 Ibid., Article 5 (7). 215 Ibid., Article 68 (1). 216 Ibid., Article 19.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 47
Slovenia (RTV Slovenia), include also the “radio and television programmes of the Italian and Hungarian national community”.217 Additionally, status of a local radio or television programme can be obtained by those media providers who seek to disseminate, among others, “programme contents about the life and work of […] persons belonging to the Italian and Hungarian community and the Roma if such contents can be seen and heard in the areas where these communities live”.218
Such general norms on the protection of the interests of the national communities, including the Hungarian national community, in the media, are supplemented with the specific legislation on the RTV Slovenia.219 This legislation provides a specific legal and financial framework for the exercise of the rights of Slovenia’s national communities to information, to information in the language of a national community, to the participation in the production of such information and of other media contents. In general, national communities in Slovenia have broad access to the public RTV Slovenia, and the Republic of Slovenia has the duty to finance media contents of the RTV Slovenia on, for and by both national communities.
Thus, the Law on the Radio-television Slovenia defines – as part of RTV Slovenia’s public radio and television broadcasting service – “radio and television programme of [RTV Slovenia’s] regional centres in Koper and Maribor”, and “one radio and television programme each for the autochthonous Italian and Hungarian national community […] and radio and television programme contents for the Roma ethnic community”.220 With these programmes, the RTV Slovenia seeks to “provide for credible and impartial information programmes”, which enable access to “objective public information for citizens of the Republic of Slovenia, Slovenians living abroad, persons belonging to the Slovenian national minorities in Italy, Austria and Hungary, autochthonous Italian and Hungarian national communities in the Republic of Slovenia and the Roma community living in Slovenia”.221 The order in which the different communities are presented in this legislation, does not appear to be coincidental. This law was adopted – amidst much public controversy – in 2005,
217Ibid., Article 76 (1). 218 Ibid., Article 78 (1). 219 Law on the Radio-television Slovenia (Zakon o Radioteleviziji Slovenija), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 96/2005 (28 October 2005), Article 1. 220 Ibid., Article 3 (1). 221 Ibid., Article 4 (1).
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 48
by the then new right-wing government, actively pursuing a set of nation-building policies. Although the law has been widely criticised and seen as reducing the freedom of the media (because of a heavy involvement of political parties in the functioning of the RTV Slovenia, and because of the limitations on the work of editors-in chief),222 it has not changed the rights of the Hungarian and Italian national communities within the RTV Slovenia.
For both communities, the existence of regional centres is of vital importance, as well as their rights to participate in the media production. RTV Slovenia’s programmes produced by the Italian and Hungarian national communities have to be available in at least 90% of the respective ethnically mixed area.223 Those parts of the programmes of the national communities that are not financed by licence fees are financed from the budget of the Republic of Slovenia.224 With respect to the right to participate in the production of media, both communities are represented, with one representative each (these representatives are appointed by the communities themselves), in the 29-member programme council of the RTV Slovenia.225 The programme council then appoints two members of the nine-member programme committees for minority programmes, in addition to those members that are either appointed by the Italian/Hungarian national community itself (i.e. two thirds of the nine-member programme council, appointed for four years by the respective self-governing national community), or are appointed by the employees in the national community radio and television programmes (i.e. one member in the nine-member programme committee).226
The programme committee for the national community programme has a very important role in the formulation of the programme contents and the production plan of the national community programme, as well as the approval of the appointment of the respective editor of the
222 For a thorough analysis of the weakneses of this law see the interview with Slavko Splichal, a Professor of Communication Scince at the University of Ljubljana, and a member of the Slovenian Academy of Arts and Sciences, in Štamcar and Pirc, 2005. 223 Law on the Radio-television Slovenia (Zakon o Radioteleviziji Slovenija), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 96/2005 (28 October 2005), Article 8 (1). 224 Ibid., Article 30 (2). 225 Ibid., Article 17 (6). 226 Ibid., Article 23 (1), (2) and (3).
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 49
Hungarian/Italian programme.227 The Statute of the public institute of the Radio-television Slovenia defines both programme committees for the Italian and the Hungarian national programme as main organs of the RTV Slovenia.228 In agreement with the respective programme committee, the director-general of the RTV Slovenia appoints its “assistant director-general for Radio and Television for autochthonous Italian and Hungarian national communities”.229 An assistant director-general has to meet certain criteria, including “active knowledge of the language of the autochthonous national community to which the national programme applies”.230
As far as the access of minorities to state media is concerned, the Advisory Committee has welcomed “the fact that representatives of the Hungarian and Italian minorities have special seats on the bodies of [RTV Slovenia], where they sit on the board, the highest governing body of RTV Slovenia”, and “note[d] with approval the existence of programme committees for Italian and Hungarian minority broadcasts, in which representatives of these two minorities actively participate.”231
Both programmes for the national communities are prepared by special organisational units of the RTV Slovenia: the Italian programme by the programme-production unit Regional RTV centre Koper (Centro regionale RTV Koper – Capodistria), and the Hungarian programme by the programme-production unit Regional RTV centre Maribor – its studio for the Hungarian programme in Lendava (Magyar Műsorok Stúdiója, Lendva).232 The Magyar Műsorok Stúdiója, Lendva, prepares, broadcasts and keeps the archives of television and radio programme for the Hungarian national community.233 Within the RTV centre Maribor, there are special editorial
227 Ibid., Article 23 (4) and (5), and Statut javnega zavoda Radiotelevizija Slovenija (Statute of the public institute of the Radio-television Slovenia), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 106/2006 (13 October 2006), Articles 29 and 30. 228 Statut javnega zavoda Radiotelevizija Slovenija (Statute of the public institute of the Radio-television Slovenia), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 106/2006 (13 October 2006), Article 10. 229 Ibid., Article 41, also V/4 – Articles 57–61. 230 Ibid., Article 59. 231 FCNM Advisory Committee’s Opinion on Slovenia 2002, paragraph 54. 232 Statut javnega zavoda Radiotelevizija Slovenija (Statute of the public institute of the Radio-television Slovenia), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 106/2006 (13 October 2006), Article 70. 233 Ibid., Article 77.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 50
production units for, among others, the Television programme for the Hungarian national community and for the Radio programme for the Hungarian national community.234
As reported by Slovenia under the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities in 2010, radio and television programmes for the Hungarian national community are “produced within the public RTV Slovenia, at the Regional RTV Centre Maribor – Hungarian Programmes Studio Lendava”, “by a total of 110 persons.”235 These programmes amount to “18 hours and 15 minutes of radio programmes daily” and several regular TV progammes”.236 In addition to the radio and television programmes, the Hungarian print media are published by the Institute for Information Services of the Hungarian National Community, founded in 1993.237 As reported by Slovenia to the Advisory Committee under the Framework Convention,238 [t]he first step towards informing the members of the Hungarian national community in their mother tongue was made in 1956 when a supplement in the Hungarian language entitled Népújság was added to the local newspaper Pomurski vestnik. Since 1958 Népújság has been published as an independent weekly. It has a circulation of approximately 2,000 copies, and about 1,600 subscribers. Every year the editors also prepare an almanac entitled Naptár. In 1986 the first edition of a special literary and cultural supplement to the weekly Népújság was published entitled Muratáj, which in 1988 became an independent literary magazine under the same name.
In comparison to the Italian national community, the Hungarian national community can enjoy fewer RTV programmes and less printed production. Indeed, these differences have been observed by the Advisory Committee, which has welcomed “the Italian minority’s excellent situation”, and noted “with approval that the authorities and representatives of the Hungarian minority agree that there should be a substantial increase in television programmes in Hungarian”.239
234 Ibid., Article 78. 235 Report submitted by the Republic of Slovenia pursuant to Article 25, Paragraph 1, of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, ACFC/SR/III(2010)007, submitted on 28 April 2010 (hereafter referred to as FCNM Slovenia’s Third Report 2010), p. 52. 236 Ibid. 237 Ibid., p. 53. 238Ibid. 239 FCNM Advisory Committee’s Opinion on Slovenia 2002, paragraphs 52 and 53, respectively.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 51
1.10 Other legal areas of particular importance
Slovenia’s minority protection system for the Italian and Hungarian national communities is very broad and extends to many issue areas. In addition to the most important issue areas analysed so far, there is at least one additional area that is of particular importance for the protection and development of special minority identities, cultures and their mother tongues. Such special importance has been attached to associations. In this respect, there are two legal acts on the establishment of special cultural centres for the Italian national community (Centro Italiano di Promozione, Cultura, Formazione e Sviluppo – Promocijsko, kulturno, izobraževalno in razvojno italijansko središče)240 and for the Hungarian community (within the framework of the Institute for the Culture of the Hungarian Nationality, the ‘Center Bánffy’241 was established in 2004). Both organisations are responsible for the promotion of national minority cultures and languages through the broadest variety of different activities, including publishing, journalism, photography, organisation of exhibitions and many others.
The functioning of societies and cultural institutes is an important element in efforts of national communities to protect and promote their special cultures and languages. It was therefore not surprising that national communities disagreed with the new Law on Societies, adopted in 2006, which stipulated that the name of a society has to be in the Slovenian language, except for societies with their seat in either of the ethnically mixed areas, where “the name can be composed also of the translation of the name into Italian or Hungarian language.”242 The Constitutional Court243 agreed with the national communities in that the status of two official languages does not allow the legislator to treat the languages of national communities as foreign languages.244 Consequently, the Constitutional Court ruled Article 10, paragraph (1) as unconstitutional because
240 Decision on the establishment of a public institute Centro Italiano di Promozione, Cultura, Formazione e Sviluppo – Promocijsko, kulturno, izobraževalno in razvojno italijansko središče (Odlok o ustanovitvi javnega zavoda Centro Italiano di Promozione, Cultura, Formazione e Sviluppo – Promocijsko, kulturno, izobraževalno in razvojno italijansko središče), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 84/2005 (16 September 2005). 241 Available at http://www.mnmi-zkmn.si/ (20 March 2011). 242 Law on Societies (Zakon o društvih), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 61/2006 (13 June 2006), Article 10, paragraph (1). 243 Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia, Decision No. U-I-380/06-11 (11 September 2008), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 91/2008 (26 September 2008). 244 See also section 2.3.2 below.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 52
the term translation is inappropriate in relation with the use of the Italian and Hungarian in the ethnically mixed areas.245
1.11 The relation between national and international law in the domestic legal order
In Slovenia’s domestic legal order, “[l]aws and other regulations must comply with generally accepted principles of international law and with treaties that are binding on Slovenia. Ratified and published treaties shall be applied directly.”246 Accordingly, the international normative layer on language issues is very important in Slovenia, and Slovenia has adopted – very early on, as part of its efforts to establish itself as a credible new international actor – the vast majority of international treaties on human and minority rights or on issues directly or indirectly addressing the management of ethnic and linguistic diversity.
Slovenia is a party to the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities: it signed the Framework Convention on 1 February 1995, and ratified it on 25 March 1998. Slovenia is also a state party to the Council of Europe’s European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages: Slovenia signed the European Charter on 3 July 1997 and ratified it on 4 October 2000. The European Charter entered into force for Slovenia on 1 January 2001. Slovenia has already submitted three reports under the Framework Convention (in 2000, 2004 and 2010), and three reports under the European Charter (in 2002, 2005, and 2009).
The different approach to language legislation in the Republic of Slovenia with respect to the Italian/Hungarian language on one hand, and the Romany language on the other,247 is reflected in international obligations of Slovenia under the relevant international treaties. With respect to the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, the Republic of Slovenia adopted an interpretative declaration and handed it to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe upon
245 Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia, Decision No. U-I-380/06-11 (11 September 2008). 246 The Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia 1991, Article 8. 247 See section 1.8 above.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 53
its ratification of the Framework Convention in 1998, in which it specified the personal scope of this treaty’s application in Slovenia: […] the Government of the Republic of Slovenia, in accordance with the Constitution and internal legislation of the Republic of Slovenia, declares that these are the autochthonous Italian and Hungarian National Minorities. In accordance with the Constitution and internal legislation of the Republic of Slovenia, the provisions of the Framework Convention shall apply also to the members of the Roma community, who live in the Republic of Slovenia.248 Similarly, the application of the European Charter in Slovenia has been limited to the Hungarian and Italian minority languages, but “[i]n accordance with Article 7, paragraph 5, of the Charter, the Republic of Slovenia will apply mutatis mutandis the provisions of Article 7, paragraphs 1 to 4, also to the [R]omani language.”249 The list of the regional or minority languages protected under this international treaty in the Republic of Slovenia has not changed, but the level of their protection was altered in 2007 when Slovenia changed the scope of its obligations by changing its list of applicable parts of Articles.250
Importantly, the scope of Slovenia’s self-chosen obligations under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages displays the key difference between the protection of the languages of both national communities on one hand, and the language of the Roma community, on the other hand. If Hungarian and Italian are defined as ‘regional or minority languages’ under the European Charter, then Slovenia provided, in 2000 (with effect from 1 January 2001), the following modest declaration with regard the Romani language: “In accordance with Article 7,
248 Declaration contained in a Note Verbale from the Permanent Representation of Slovenia, dated 23 March 1998, handed to the Secretary General at the time of deposit of the instrument of ratification, on 25 March 1998, available at http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/ListeDeclarations.asp?NT=157&CV=1&NA=&PO=999&CN=999&VL=1& CM=9&CL=ENG (10 January 2011). 249 Declaration contained in a Note Verbale from the Permanent Representation of Slovenia, dated 19 September 2000, handed to the Secretary General at the time of deposit of the instrument of ratification, on 4 October 2000, available at http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/Commun/ListeDeclarations.asp?NT=148 &CM=&DF=&CL=ENG&VL=1 (10 January 2011). 250 Declaration contained in a Note verbale from the Permanent Representation of Slovenia, dated 26 June 2007, registered at the Secretariat General on 27 June 2007, available at http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/ Commun/ListeDeclarations.asp?NT=148&CM=&DF=&CL=ENG&VL=1 (10 January 2011).
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 54
paragraph 5, of the Charter, the Republic of Slovenia will apply mutatis mutandis the provisions of Article 7, paragraphs 1 to 4, also to the [R]omani language.”251
Also, there are some differences between the level of protection of the Italian and the Hungarian language. In accordance with Article 2, paragraph 2, of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, the Republic of Slovenia has declared that it will apply (from 27 June 2007) the following provisions of Part III of the Charter to the languages of both national communities in the same manner: Article 9 (Paragraph 1, sub-paragraphs a, b, c, d; Paragraph 2, sub-paragraph a), Article 10 (Paragraph 1, sub-paragraphs a (i), b, c; Paragraph 2; Paragraph 3, sub-paragraph a; Paragraph 4; Paragraph 5), Article 11 (Paragraph 1, sub-paragraphs a (i), e (i); Paragraph 2; Paragraph 3), Article 12 (Paragraph 1, sub-paragraphs a, d, e, f; Paragraph 2; Paragraph 3), Article 13 (Paragraph 1; Paragraph 2), Article 14 (Paragraph a; Paragraph b).252
However, the application of Article 8 on the use of languages in education differs for both languages. Whereas Slovenia applies paragraph 2 of Article 8 to both languages, there are differences with respect to paragraph 1. The latter applies to the Italian language in accordance with the provisions in “sub-paragraphs a (i), b (i), c (i), d (i), e (iii), f (iii), g, h, I”, and to the Hungarian language in accordance with the provisions in “sub-paragraphs a (ii), b (ii), c (ii), d (ii), e (iii), f (iii), g, h, i”.253 In practice, this difference means that Slovenia undertakes for the Italian language “to make available pre-school education in the relevant regional or minority languages”, whereas for the Hungarian, “to make available a substantial part of pre-school education in the relevant regional or minority languages” (emphasis added).254 The same distinction between ‘making available’ and ‘making available a substantive part’ applies also to: making available (a substantial part of) primary education in the relevant regional or minority language (sub-paragraph b), making available (a substantial part of) secondary education in
251 Declaration contained in a Note Verbale from the Permanent Representation of Slovenia, dated 19 September 2000, handed to the Secretary General at the time of deposit of the instrument of ratification, on 4 October 2000, available at http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/Commun/ListeDeclarations.asp?NT =148&CM=&DF=&CL=ENG&VL=1 (10 January 2011). 252 Declaration contained in a Note verbale from the Permanent Representation of Slovenia, dated 26 June 2007, registered at the Secretariat General on 27 June 2007, available at http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/ Commun/ListeDeclarations.asp?NT=148&CM=&DF=&CL=ENG&VL=1 (10 January 2011). 253 Ibid. 254 European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, Article 8, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph a.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 55
the relevant regional or minority language (sub-paragraph c), and to making available (a substantial part of) technical and vocational education in the relevant regional or minority language (sub- paragraph d). This is in line with the key difference in the approach towards minority languages in education in Slovenia: i.e. bilingual educational institutions in the Hungarian-Slovenian ethnically mixed areas, and monolingual (with the obligatory learning of both languages) in the Italian- Slovenian ethnically mixed area.
In 1992, Slovenia and Hungary signed a bilateral international agreement on guaranteeing special rights of the Slovenian national minority in the Republic of Hungary and of the Hungarian national community in the Republic of Slovenia.255 In the agreement, ratified by the National Assembly on 26 March 1993, the state parties – not surprisingly – devoted much attention to the use and promotion of minority languages.
1.12 Debates on language rights and ‘old’ and ‘new’ minorities
In Slovenia, persons belonging to the Albanian, Bosniac, Croatian, Macedonian, Montenegrin and Serbian (listed in English alphabetical order) nations (as separate ethnic groups) are perceived as persons belonging to ‘new’ minorities. There is an ongoing debate about their status and about their rights as individuals belonging to ethnic communities different from the dominant Slovenian nation and also from the non-dominant autochthonous minority communities recognised in the Constitution. This debate has also touched upon the issue of language rights, but it has not been dominated by language-related issues.
In general, Slovenia has taken a stance since its independence that persons belonging to these communities are protected under Article 61 of the Constitution, which guarantees free expression of national affiliation: “Everyone has the right to freely express affiliation with his nation or national community, to foster and give expression to his culture, and to use his language and script.”256 This has been deemed sufficient for addressing the interests of persons belongin to new
255 Law on Ratification of the Agreement on Guaranteeing of Special Rights of the Slovenian National Minority in the Republic of Hungary and of Hungarian National Community in the Republic of Slovenia (Zakon o ratifikaciji sporazuma o zagotavljanju posebnih pravic slovenske narodne manjšine v Republiki Madžarski in madžarske narodne skupnosti v Republiki Sloveniji), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 23/1993 (7 May 1993). 256 The Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia, Article 61.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 56
minorities. Of course, this also marks a contrast to minority protection for the Italian and Hungarian communities.
Instead, the situation of persons belonging to the non-traditional communities originating from the former Yugoslav republics has been addressed as an issue of Slovenia’s multiculturalism. Accordingly, the Ministry of Culture has been responsible for preparing and financing any programmes on promoting or preserving distinct ethnic identities of persons belonging to these communities. Such programmes included support to their cultural associations, as well as language education.257 However, this approach by the Slovenian government has not been perceived as sufficient by the representatives of these communities.
Following such dissatisfaction, a Co-ordination of unions and cultural associations of the constitutive nations and nationalities of the former SFRY in the Republic of Slovenia presented a Public initiative of Albanians, Bosniacs, Montenegrins, Croats, Macedonians and Serbs living in Slovenia, in which they called for recognition in the Slovenian Constitution, of the Albanians, Bosniacs, Montenegrins, Croats, Macedonians and Serbs living in Slovenia as national communities/national minorities.258 It took the National Assembly no less than seven years to start a meaningful debate about the situation and the needs of persons belonging to these ‘new’ minorities in Slovenia – thus demonstrating that this is still a politically sensitive issue, for at least two reasons. Firstly, Slovenian nation-building has always been carried out in response to the perception about the ‘Slovenian smallness’, including in the former Yugoslavia where the Slovenian nation was again amongst the smallest nations and the perception gradually developed that it was being dominated, including in the area of language use, by other Serbo-Croatian speaking nations.259 In the independent Slovenia, national policies were thus primarily concerned
257 See FCNM Slovenia’s Report 2000, paragraphs 57–60; FCNM Slovenia’s Second Report 2004, pp. 30, 37 and 49; and FCNM Slovenia’s Third Report 2010, pp. 70–71. 258 Koordinacija zvez in kulturnih društev konstitutivnih narodov in narodnosti razpadle SFRJ v Republiki Sloveniji (Co- ordination of unions and cultural associations of the constitutive nations and nationalities of the former SFRY in the Republic of Slovenia): Javna pobuda Albancev, Bošnjakov, Črnogorcev, Hrvatov, Makedoncev, Srbov, ki živimo v Republiki Sloveniji (Public initiative of Albanians, Bosniacs, Montenegrins, Croats, Macedonians and Serbs living in Slovenia), presented in Ljubljana, on 14 October 2003. 259 Roter, 2003.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 57
with protecting the dominant nation, rather than persons belonging to the nations against which Slovenians had to secure their existence as a nation within the former Yugoslavia.
Secondly, a somewhat more pragmatic reason for the lack of any sincere willingness by the Slovenian political elite to address the situation and the needs of persons belonging to ‘new’ minorities in Slovenia has been related to the status of the Italian and the Hungarian national communities. The implementation of most of their minority rights is geographically based, which is not applicable to the territorially dispersed ‘new’ minorities. More importantly, the complex and very comprehensive minority protection for the two small autochthonous minorities could not be replicated to some 10% of the population of the ‘new’ minorities – not only because they are scattered around the country but also for financial reasons. Equal rights would also imply that persons belonging to ‘new’ minorities would have the right to elect their representative(s) to the National Assembly. This would require a change of the Constitution and thus a two-third-majority in the parliament. More importantly, the change would extend to a new form of ethnic identification for the purpose of forming electoral registers of individual minorities. All this is unlikely to be realised shortly. Simultaneously, however, any proposal about a joint representation of all minorities in the Parliament was firmly rejected by the representatives of the traditional national communities, themselves not willing to give up their rights.260
Slovenia was not wiling or able to find an approach that would be suitable to addressing the needs, including the language needs, of persons belonging to ‘new’ minorities, although several international institutions – including the Advisory Committee and the Committee of Experts – were persistently calling on Slovenia to do so. In its Second Opinion on Slovenia in 2005, the Advisory Committee thus wrote: In view of these persons’ specific position in Slovenia, the many problems they face and their desire to be able to preserve and develop their identity, it is particularly important that the authorities address their situation and consider the possibility of adopting a more inclusive approach to the scope of application of the Framework Convention in relation to them.261
260 Empirical research by the author. 261 FCNM Advisory Committee’s Second Opinion on Slovenia 2005, paragraph 10.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 58
The National Assembly has, however, recently adopted a Declaration on the situation of national communities of persons belonging to nations of the former SFRY in the Republic of Slovenia, in which these new minorities – composed of persons belonging to constitutive national groups of former Yugoslavia, who now permanently live in Slovenia and are its citizens – have been referred to as ‘new national communities’.262 The declaration, adopted on 1 February 2011, was initiated by the President of Slovenia, with a view to paving the way for addressing the status and protection of new national communities in Slovenia. Slovenia’s Ombudsman had also persistently called for the authorities to adopt additional measures for promotion, development and protection of the identity of those minorities that live in Slovenia but are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Such measures were particularly needed in the issue area of protection of their cultural identity and language, presence in the media and other things contributing to the protection of their national identity.
The Declaration presents an important step towards formally addressing the issue of new minorities in Slovenia. As recently observed by the Advisory Committee, this Declaration “indicates increased willingness to promote integration of persons belonging to these groups into Slovenian society and to set a more favourable social climate towards them.”263 The approach taken in this process has been phrased in multicultural terms, combining integration of individuals into the Slovenian polity with an active support by the Slovenian state to preserve their distinct identity, culture, language and script, and their own history.264 In order to secure permanent support for the protection and development of the identities of these new national communities, the National Assembly was willing to support the creation, by the government, of a consultative body in which representatives of these communities would participate on an equal footing.265 Of course, with the adoption of the Declaration and the creation266 of a Council as a consultative body to the government, the debate about the new national communities and their status in the Republic of
262 Declaration on the situation of national communities of persons belonging to nations of the former SFRY in the Republic of Slovenia (Deklaracija Republike Slovenije o položaju narodnih skupnosti pripadnikov narodov nekdanje SFRJ v Republiki Sloveniji (DePNNS)), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 7/2011 (4 February 2011). 263 Third Opinion on Slovenia, adopted by the Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, on 31 March 2011, published on 28 October March 2011, ACFC/OP/III(2011)003, para. 143. 264 Ibid., point 3. 265 Ibid., point 5. 266 On 12 May 2011, the government adopted a decision on the formation of such a body, within 30 days after the adoption of its decision.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 59
Slovenia has not been concluded. On the contrary, these two steps have indeed made it possible to start such a debate, focused on substantive issues touching upon the necessary conditions for Slovenian citizens belonging to these communities to be able to preserve and promote their distinct ethnic identity.
2 Language and minority policies in practice
Slovenia’s legislation on minorities and languages is very extensive, detailed and complex. However, as noted by the Advisory Committee in 2002, “it sometimes appears difficult in practice to make use of [these] legal provisions” regarding the use of minority languages.267 Representatives of the Hungarian national community have consistently pointed out that the actual problem, with respect to their rights and possibilities to preserve and develop their distinct national identity is above all the implementation of the legislation, rather than the legislation as such.268
2.1 Parliamentary debates on languages and minorities
2.1.1 With respect to constitutional provisions
There has not been any prominent parliamentary debate for a while about constitutional provisions on languages and minorities. Although the 1991 Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia has been amended five times269 since its adoption on 23 December 1991, none of the changes affected the constitutional provisions on either languages or minorities. The only amendment affecting the issue of human rights and discrimination was the one in 2004, whereby Article 14 on the equality before
267 FCNM Advisory Committee’s Opinion on Slovenia 2002, paragraph 57. 268 Personal interview with Dr. László Göncz, Hungarian MP in the National Assembly, Ljubljana, 24 May 2011. 269 The Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia – consolidated text that includes the original Constitution of 23 December 1991 (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 33/1991-I) and the amendments adopted by the Constitutional Act of 14 July 1997 (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 42/1997), the Constitutional Act of 25 July 2000 (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 66/2000), the Constitutional Act of 27 February 2003 (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 24/2003), the Constitutional Acts of 15 June 2004 (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 69/2004), and the Constitutional Act of 20 June 2006 (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 68/2006).
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 60
the law was changed so that disability was added to the list of personal characteristics and circumstances that cannot be the reason for inequality in terms of human rights and fundamental freedoms.270
The parliamentary debate about the new national communities in early 2011 was rather intense in the context of the adoption of the special declaration on the situation of these new national communities and their members in Slovenia. This debate took place just shortly before the adoption of this declaration on 1 February 2011. With the exception of some voices, the declaration was supported by the coalition and the opposition, both agreeing that it was time for Slovenia to recognise the de facto existence of the new national communities in Slovenia, their needs, and the need to institutionalise a dialogue between these communities and the authorities.
With respect to the autochthonous national communities, perhaps the most prominent parliamentary debate in the last few months has been a debate about the formation of a new municipality (i.e. the municipality of Ankaran) in the ethnically mixed area. This municipality is to be established in order to follow the popular will of the inhabitants in this municipality as expressed in a referendum on 8 November 2009.271 However, the actual creation of a new municipality lies within the responsibility of the legislature (i.e. the National Assembly). This municipality is to be established in the territory, which is at present part of the currently existing municipality of Koper/Capodistria. With the creation of a new municipality of Ankaran, the municipality of Koper/Capodistria will lose its economically very important and profitable part - the Port of Koper. It is therefore not surprising that the municipality of Koper/Capodistria strongly opposes the creation of the new municipality of Ankaran.
Interestingly enough, such strong opposition is also found within the Italian community because of the possible negative effects of the administrative borders on the ethnic, above all linguistic,
270 The Constitutional Act Amending Article 14 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia (Ustavni zakon o spremembi 14. člena Ustave Republike Slovenije), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 69/2004 (24 June 2004). 271 See the Report by the State Electoral Commission on the referendum on the creation of new municipalities of Ankaran and Mirna, on 8 November 2009 (državna volilna komisija: Poročilo o izidu glasovanja in o izidu referenduma o ustanovitvi občin oziroma spremembi njihovih območij, ki je bil 8. novembra 2009), available at http://www.dvk.gov.si/O2009/dokumenti/porocilo_o_izidu_referenduma.pdf (10 March 2011).
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 61
character of the population in the new municipality. Thus, some representatives of the Italian community (including the member of the National Assembly elected by persons belonging to the Italian community in Slovenia, and the Self-governing National Community in Koper/Capodistria) have strongly opposed the creation of the municipality, arguing that it would be unconstitutional.272 Furthermore, according to them, the creation would have a negative impact on the Italian community living in the new municipality as it would further defragment their representation, institutions as well as finances (which would probably be split).
By contrast, following the decision by the Constitutional Court in 2010 that the will of the people needed to be respected and the new municipality had to be created by the National Assembly,273 other representatives of the Italian community (including a member of the National Assembly who is ethnically Italian but was elected to the parliament from a political party list, rather than from a special minority list) have eagerly defended the creation of a new municipality.274 Some members of the Italian community have accepted the process of creating the municipality of Ankaran as legitimate, and have accordingly already sought to establish a self-governing Italian community in Ankaran/Ancarano – i.e. a legal person of the Italian community in the new municipality.
The debate surrounding the issue of Ankaran is relevant for at least two reasons. Firstly, the parliamentary debates have centred on the issue of creating the best possibilities for the Italian community to be able to preserve its national identity of which the most important characteristic is the Italian language. There were, however, different solutions, and the parliamentary debates have produced a number of arguments for and against the creation of the new municipality from the perspective of the Italian community. The debate, however, was sometimes surprisingly heated as the Slovenian legislation is very clear in defining the ethnically mixed area, which is also
272 See, for example, the parliamentary debate in the Commission of the National Assembly for Nationalities, 17th session, 12 January 2011, point 2 on the agenda, available at http://www.dz- rs.si/index.php?id=96&cs=4&committee=23&unid=PMT|C828CE63EAF28447C125781B0040FBF6&showdoc=1 (27 February 2011). 273 Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia, Decision No. U-I.137/10-47 (26 November 2010), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 99/2010 (7 December 2010). 274 See, for example, the parliamentary debate in the Commission of the National Assembly for Nationalities, 17th session, 12 January 2011, point 2 on the agenda, available at http://www.dz- rs.si/index.php?id=96&cs=4&committee=23&unid=PMT|C828CE63EAF28447C125781B0040FBF6&showdoc=1 (27 February 2011).
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 62
an area where the Slovenian language and the language of a national community are official languages. Any change of administrative borders between different municipalities therefore does not, in itself, reduce the legal protection of the Italian language. In practice, the documents as well as the website275 of the new municipality are also bilingual. Moreover, the new municipality ‘in the making’276 has publicly declared, on its website, that it will ensure the Italian national community the status and environment for its functioning at least at the level enjoyed at present by the community of Italians in the coastal area. In the light of European integration processes, the fourth coastal municipality of Ankaran, which borders the neighbouring Republic of Italy, significantly contributes to the improvement of intercultural dialogue and multilingualism (plurilingualism).277 From the public debates leading to the referendum on the creation of the new municipality of Ankaran, it is very clear that the municipality was not created for any reason related to the Italian community. Instead, the inhabitants of Ankaran/Ancarano voted for the creation of a new municipality for other reasons – political, economic and environmental. That the creation of the new municipality, which would include the Port, is a highly prestigious political and financial/economic issue has been proven in the general parliamentary debates on the creation of the new municipality.278 This case therefore demonstrates that minority protection (including language protection) debates are closely linked to other interests.
Secondly, this debate is also important because it touched upon past administrative changes in the ethnically mixed area where the Hungarian community lives. The general trend in Slovenia to establish as many municipalities as possible, with the intention to guarantee self-government at the local level, has been detrimental in many respects, including for the national communities, as pointed out by their representatives in the parliament. In particular, László Göncz, a member of the National Assembly elected by the Hungarian national community, has suggested that the previous administrative divisions leading to the creation of new municipalities in the region of Prekmurje (i.e. the area traditionally inhabited by the Hungarian minority) have created a situation whereby “the
275 The website of the municipality of Ankaran/Ancarano (Občina Ankaran/Comune di Ancarano) can be accessed at http://obcina-ankaran.si/ (10 March 2011). 276 As of May 2011, the new municipality has not yet been established by the National Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia. For the reasons see below. 277 Občina Ankaran: ‘Comunità Italiana – Italijanska Narodna Skupnost’, available at http://obcina-ankaran.si/?p=328 (20 April 2011). 278 Kolman, Manuel: ‘Padel tudi zadnji poskus ustanovitve občine Ankaran’, Primorska.info, 20 April 2011, available at http://www.primorska.info/novice/12861/padel_tudi_zadnji_poskus_ustanovitve_obcine _ankaran (22 April 2011).
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 63
Hungarian national community, after it had found itself in three municipalities, has effectively failed to organise itself as a kind of a subject in the area where it lives.”279 In effect, as argued by Göncz, the general trend in Slovenia to increase the number of municipalities has therefore reduced the strength of the Hungarian national community although this was not the intention behind the creation of municipalities.280 Particularly for numerically small national minorities, the process of decentralistaion can therefore create more problems as more opportunities for their participation may themselves prove to be a challenge.
2.1.2 With respect to language legislation
Recently, there has been no prominent parliamentary debate related to language legislation. This is because the legislation on the regulation of the use of languages in Slovenia has not changed in the past few years. Indirectly, however, the parliamentary debates have touched upon the issue of minority languages and language legislation. In particular, a debate was sparked by the new legislation on identity cards. Whereas the contents of the changed legislation are discussed below,281 this section will summarise some the key points of the parliamentary debate on this legislation.
The new Law on Identity Card282 was in the end adopted by the National Assembly on 3 May 2011, but since then the national communities (especially the Italian national community, supported also by the Hungarian national community) have been thinking about asking the Constitutional Court if the law upholds the principle of non-discrimination as proclaimed by the Constitution.283 The new law defines, in greater detail, the process of issuing identity cards, with a view to making it easier for anyone to apply for an identity card anywhere in Slovenia or at Slovenia’s diplomatic
279 See, for example, the parliamentary debate in the Commission of the National Assembly for Nationalities, 17th session, 12 January 2011, point 2 on the agenda, available at http://www.dz- rs.si/index.php?id=96&cs=4&committee=23&unid=PMT|C828CE63EAF28447C125781B0040FBF6&showdoc=1 (27 February 2011). 280 Personal interview with Dr. László Göncz, Hungarian MP in the National Assembly, Ljubljana, 24 May 2011. 281 See section 2.2 below. 282 Law on Identity Card (Zakon o osebni izkaznici), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 35/2011 (13 May 2011). 283 Milanov, 2011, p. 8.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 64
and consular missions abroad, and to receive the identity card faster.284 This law is, however, also changing the previously existing provision with respect to the process of issuing identity cards for residents in the ethnically mixed areas, and in those areas, by administrative offices in both ethnically mixed areas.
Traditionally, all personal documents, including identity cards, for all inhabitants of the ethnically mixed areas – whether the person has Slovenian or Italian/Hungarian ethnic identity – have to be issued also in the minority language. If documents in Slovenia are issued in Slovenian and English, documents in the ethnically mixed areas in Slovenia are issued also in either Italian or Hungarian language, based on the so-called ‘bilingual forms’ (see Picture 1 below) to be filled in when inhabitants of the Italian or Hungarian ethnically mixed areas are applying for their identity card. This enables also the use of the Italian/Hungarian alphabet, and, consequently, for personal data to be written in the language of the national community to which an individual belongs (see Picture 2 below). The present forms have been in use since 1998, and there “have been no major complaints with respect to this matter”, as pointed out by Dušan Vučko, a representative of the Ministry of the Interior.285
284 Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Slovenia: Draft Law on Identity Card (EVA: 2010-1711-0001) (Predlog Zakona o osebni izkaznici (EVA: 2010-1711-0001)), no date, http://www.mnz.gov.si/fileadmin/mnz.gov.si/pageuploads/SOJ/word/Zakon_o_osebni_izkaznici.doc (10 April 2011), chapters I.1 and I.2. 285 Commission of the National Assembly for Nationalities, 17th session, 12 January 2011, point 4 on the agenda: Law on Identity Card – first reading, available at http://www.dz- rs.si/index.php?id=96&cs=4&committee=23&unid=PMT|C828CE63EAF28447C125781B0040FBF6&showdoc=1 (27 February 2011).
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 65
Picture 1. Bilingual form
Application for identity card the ethnically mixed area where the Hungarian national community lives autochthonously (front page), available at http://www.uradni-list.si/files/RS_-2008- 068-02976-OB~P003-0000.PDF (30 April 2011).
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 66
Picture 2. ‘Bilingual’ identity card for all inhabitants of the ethnically mixed area where the Hungarian national community lives autochthonously (front and back page), available at http://www.uradni-list.si/files/RS_-2008-068-02976-OB~P006-0000.PDF (30 April 2011).
However, the legislative changes have paved the way for easing the obligatory character of using both – the Slovenian and Italian/Hungarian – languages, something which has not been welcomed by the representatives of both national communities, and of the Italian in particular.286 Furthermore, the national communities are not satisfied with the fact that although the legislation has changed to make it easier for individuals to obtain their identity card anywhere (i.e. regardless of their permanent residence), the new law does not allow for the possibility of a person belonging to a national community and permanently residing in an ethnically mixed area to apply for an identity card elsewhere in Slovenia (i.e. where this person may live temporarily) by using the bilingual form, and, consequently, to obtain the identity card in Slovenian-English- Hungarian/Italian.
The Ministry of the Interior, “never had any intention to lower the standards with respect to implementing [language-related] provisions of this law”.287 Simultaneously, however, the representative of the Ministry of the Interior Vučko repeated the views already expressed in 2005 by the Ministry of Public Administration and governmental Office for National Communities that the extension of the right to apply and obtain identity cards for the inhabitants of the ethnically mixed areas anywhere in Slovenia was unconstitutional, for minority protection in the Republic of
286 For the relevant articles in the previous and the new law on identity card, see section 2.2 below. 287 Commission of the National Assembly for Nationalities, 17th session, 12 January 2011, point 4 on the agenda: Law on Identity Card – first reading, available at http://www.dz- rs.si/index.php?id=96&cs=4&committee=23&unid=PMT|C828CE63EAF28447C125781B0040FBF6&showdoc=1 (27 February 2011).
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 67
Slovenia is provided for according to the territorial principle – i.e. in the ethnically mixed areas as defined by law.288 Furthermore, as reiterated by Vučko, minority protection is a collective right, and the right to bilingual documents belongs to both national communities and by implication to their members, but solely in the area where they live autochthonously and that are officially bilingual.289 Conversely, bilingualism applies to the territory – i.e. to all inhabitants, regardless of their ethnicity, of this territory. Also, bilingualism does not extend and cannot be extended beyond the ethnically mixed areas.290
Persons belonging to the Italian national community in particular, have argued that the right to bilingual documents belongs to individuals – persons belonging to national communities, and they can exercise this rights whereever they wish (i.e. even if they temporary reside outside of the ethnically mixed area, or if they simply find themselves in a situation when they wish to apply for their identity card at an administrative office that is not bilingual as it is not situated in an ethnically mixed area).291 For Vučko, such a solution would be contrary to what the national communities sought to avoid in the late-1990s – namely, reducing this right to the level of individuals as this would allow for ‘registration’ of persons belonging to national communities; instead, the intention of the communities and the government has always been to preserve bilingualism in the ethnically mixed areas, for all inhabitants of these areas.292 Moreover, individuals retain this right, but they will have to exercise it in the respective ethnically mixed area.293
Although this debate was effectively initiated by the representatives of the Italian national community, it is relevant also for the Hungarian national community. Indeed, the administrative changes in the organisation of public administration in the past two decades have led to the creation of an administrative office in Murska Sobota (with some 60,000 inhabitants), which is itself not entirely in an ethnically mixed area. In its area of competence, there are eight areas/settlements in the Slovenian-Hungarian ethnically mixed area, inhabited by some 1,500
288 Ibid. 289 Ibid. 290 Ibid. 291 Ibid. 292 Ibid. 293 Ibid.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 68
persons belonging to the Hungarian national community:294 in the municipality of Hodoš,295 two bilingual settlements are Hodoš/Hodos and Krplivnik/Kapornak; in the municipality of Moravske Toplice,296 there are five bilingual settlements (Prosenjakovci/Pártosfalva, Čikečka vas/Csekefa, Motvarjavci/Szentlászló, Pordašinci/Kisfalu, and Središče/Szerdahely), and the eighth settlement is the settlement of Domanjševci/Domonkosfa, situated in the municipality of Šalovci.297 All these administrative changes are nowadays believed to have weakened the Hungarian national community, particularly because Murska Sobota is not in the bilingual area.298
2.1.3 With respect to education legislation
There has been no specific parliamentary debate about education legislation that would be relevant for the Hungarian community in Slovenia.
2.1.4 With respect to media legislation
Recently, there was one very prominent parliamentary debate on minorities in the issue-area of media legislation. This debate was predominantly a debate about the ‘new’ minorities. The debate first touched upon the issue area of the media in the late 2010, and it then, in early 2011, continued with respect to diversity management as it applies to these new national communities. The former debate was particularly prominent after the government suggested, in the new law on the public broadcaster (the Radio-television Slovenija, or RTV Slovenia), adopted by the National Assembly on 20 October 2010, that the RTV Slovenia should prepare and broadcast special programmes on these new national communities composed of individuals belonging to the Croatian, Serbian, Bosniac, Albanian, Montenegrin and Macedonian nation. This law was passed in the parliament but was subsequently rejected at a referendum on 12 December 2011. The
294 Administrative office Murska Sobota/Upravna enota Murska Sobota: About the administrative office (O Upravni enoti), available at http://www.upravneenote.gov.si/murska_sobota/o_upravni_enoti/ (15 April 2011). 295 The Statute of the Municipality of Hodoš (Statut občine Hodoš), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 136/2006 (22 December 2006). 296 The Statute of the Municipality of Moravske Toplice (Statut občine Moravske Toplice), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 11/1999 (19 February 1999). 297 The Statute of the Municipality of Šalovci (Statut občine Šalovci), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 38/2006 (11 April 2006). 298 Personal interview with Dr. László Göncz, Hungarian MP in the National Assembly, Ljubljana, 24 May 2011.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 69
referendum was requested by a group of members of the parliament on 26 October 2011. The opposition thus took advantage of the weak government to oppose the changes of the law which it had originally adopted when it formed the right-wing coalition government in the previous mandate (between 2004 and 2008). This older law was widely seen, both by domestic media experts as well as by international experts from the Council of Europe and other international media or journalist associations – as significantly diminishing the freedom of expression, the freedom of the press and media freedom in general. The new left-wing government, elected in 2008, therefore set the change of this law as one of its key priorities.
The debate about these new national communities, their rights, and obligations of the Republic of Slovenia towards them– or the lack thereof –, were all topics that were subject to very heated debates in the Parliament particularly before the referendum. During the referendum campaign (in the month before the referendum), this discussion about the programmes for and about the ‘new’ minorities also entered the public sphere although the new law was not primarily about changing the (contents of the) programme. On the contrary, the government argued that it was seeking to increase the autonomy of the RTV Slovenia, to improve business efficiency by improving the quality of the programme and technological excellence, and to improve the RTV Slovenia’s transparency.299
The process of the adoption of the new law on the RTV Slovenia was also subject to a debate about the rights of the traditional national communities. One issue was particularly prominent: the government had proposed, in the draft law to be sent to the parliament, that the composition of the Council of the RTV Slovenia should be changed so that the Italian and the Hungarian communities be allowed to appoint only one joint member of the Council of the RTV Slovenia. This meant a fundamental change in the approach to participation and representation of both national communities which had been based on the principle that both communities should be represented, including in the Council.
299 Government of the Republic of Slovenia: Radio-television Slovenia in accordance with the new law (Radiotelevizija Slovenije po novem zakonu), http://www.vlada.si/si/teme_in_projekti/nov_zakon_o_rtv/ (25 February 2011).
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 70
Although the government had no intention to purposefully upset the national communities, but it instead wanted to decrease the number of the councillors (and as part of this change, it also changed the type of representation of the national communities),300 this upset the representatives of the national communities who subsequently successfully convinced the government to resort to the ‘old’ type of representation in the Council of the RTV Slovenia, which enables the Italian and the Hungarian community to each elect a member to the Council.
2.2 Recent legal initiatives on languages and minorities
There has been one issue that has recently dominated the parliamentary debates about minorities, minority protection and specific language-related rights. This has been a debate surrounding the new legislation, adopted on 3 May 2011, on identity cards.301 The new approach, instituted with the new Law on Identity Card and upholding the non-territorial principle (in effect since 2005)302 in the process of issuing Slovenia’s identity cards, is very important as it can have multiple consequences in many other areas directly or indirectly touching upon the use of minority languages.303
This overwhelmingly welcome approach to regulating the rather complicated administrative procedures in Slovenia, as well as the specific legal solutions as instituted within the new 2011 Law on Identity Card, have been, however, subject to intensive criticisms by the representatives of national communities who believe that the legislation does not appropriately regulate the process of issuing identity cards for inhabitants of the ethnically mixed areas.304 For the new 2011 Law on Identity Card provides that identity card forms can be issued in three languages (Slovenian, English and Italian or Hungarian) only to citizens with a permanent residence in areas, determined by law,
300 Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Slovenia: Draft law on Radio-television Slovenia (Osnutek zakona o Radioteleviziji Slovenija), no date, p. 3, available at http://www.mk.gov.si/fileadmin/mk.gov.si/pageuploads/Ministrstvo/Zakonodaja/Predlogi_zakonov/Zakon_RTV_S lovenija_lekt_in_uskl_cistopis_z_lekt_uvodom_in_obrazlozitvami_FIN__-_CEL_ZAKON.pdf (27 March 2011). 301 Law on Identity Card (Zakon o osebni izkaznici), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 35/2011 (13 May 2011). 302 Law Amending the Law on Identity Card (Zakon o spremembah Zakona o osebni izkaznici), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 60/2005 (24 June 2005). 303 Informal interview with an adviser to the Italian and Hungarian National Communities, Ljubljana, 12 May 2011. 304 See section 2.1.2 above.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 71
where the Italian or Hungarian community lives autochthonously,305 or to citizens living in those areas temporarily and who are not registered as permanent residents in the Republic of Slovenia or abroad, or to a citizen without a residence if he or she applies for it at the administrative office in these areas.306 The identity cards (in three languages) can be “issued by the administrative office in the area, defined by law, where the autochthonous Italian or Hungarian national community lives.”307 Accordingly, speakers of Italian or Hungarian who permanently reside in a respective ethnically mixed area but would wish to apply for their identity card outside of the ethnically mixed area, can do so but the procedure (including the forms) will be in Slovenian as this is the only official language in those other administrative offices; accordingly, they will be issued a regular identity card, in Slovenian-English, rather than the identity card otherwise in use in the ethnically mixed areas (e.g. Slovenian-English-Hungarian).308
Although the lack of this possibility for individuals from the ethnically mixed areas to apply for special identity cards has been in the centre of extensive parliamentary debates with respect to this new legislation, there is also another implication that has been somewhat overlooked, at least in the parliamentary debates. Namely, as such legislation can effectively enable individuals living in the ethnically mixed areas to obtain the usual (Slovenian-English) identity cards, rather than those in use in the bilingual areas (i.e. identity cards in Slovenian-English-Italian/Hungarian), this could – at least theoretically – lead to a significant number of ethnic Slovenians permanently living in the ethnically mixed areas to apply for the regular identity cards outside of the ethnically mixed areas. This fundamentally affects the elements of minority protection that applied territorially – i.e. to all (minority and majority) inhabitants of the ethnically mixed areas. All inhabitants were obliged to have personal documents issued also in the language of a respective national community. The government thus appears to be faced with a rather significant challenge as to how it can guarantee, on one hand, the non-discrimination and equal rights of all inhabitants of the Republic of Slovenia, and, on the other hand, how it could simultaneously protect the national communities in accordance with the Constitution.
305 Law on Identity Card (Zakon o osebni izkaznici), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 35/2011 (13 May 2011), Article 7 (2). 306 Ibid., Article 7 (3). 307 Ibid., Article 7 (4). 308 For the detailed explanation and governmental reasoning behind this approach see section 2.1.2 above.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 72
The bilingual character of the ethnically mixed areas has been so far preserved and upheld also in the area of personal documents, which are to be traditionally issued in the languages of the dominant nation and the respective national community for all residents, regardless of their ethnic identity. Such an approach towards guaranteeing the visible use of majority and minority languages was seen as an important element for strengthening the ethnically (above all linguistically) diverse character of the areas traditionally inhabited by persons belonging to both communities.309 With the changed legislation in effect since 2005,310 however, anyone, including non-residents of ethnically mixed areas, can apply for his or her identity card (or other personal documents for that matter) also in the ethnically mixed areas. Accordingly, the law envisages that the administrative offices issuing identity cards can now issue also monolingual cards, although not to individuals who permanently reside in ethnically mixed areas. Moreover, other administrative offices outside of the ethnically mixed areas cannot issue bilingual identity cards, due to ‘procedural matters’ – above all the use of language.
The government has explained that the purpose of having bilingual cards issued in ethnically mixed areas is to provide the simultaneously existing possibility (and the duty to provide for such a possibility) in those areas to conduct the entire administrative procedure (i.e. the application for the cards, issuing and the collection of the identity cards) in either of the two official languages – Slovenian and Italian or Hungarian.311 This right cannot be exercised and guaranteed in other administrative offices, which function in Slovenian as the only official language. According to the Ministry of the Interior, only administrative offices in ethnically mixed areas function bilingually; and by implication, a bilingual administrative procedure (a part of which is the issuing of an identity card, or other personal documents) cannot be carried out outside of the ethnically mixed area, which is “in line with Articles 11 and 64 of the constitution” and other laws on public administration and administrative procedures, which all provide for Slovenian as the official
309 Komac, with Zupančič and Winkler, 1999. 310 Law Amending the Law on Identity Card (Zakon o spremembah Zakona o osebni izkaznici), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 60/2005 (24 June 2005). 311 Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Slovenia: Draft Law on Identity Card (EVA: 2010-1711-0001) (Predlog Zakona o osebni izkaznici (EVA: 2010-1711-0001)), no date, http://www.mnz.gov.si/fileadmin/mnz.gov.si/pageuploads/SOJ/word/Zakon_o_osebni_izkaznici.doc (10 April 2011), comments with respect to Article 7.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 73
language, except in ethnically mixed areas, where alongside Slovenian, the language of a respective national community is also an official language.312
The representatives of national minorities in the parliament have explained that they do not seek the right to conduct the administrative procedure in their language if the procedure takes place outside of the ethnically mixed area. Instead, they would wish to have a possibility to apply for a ‘bilingual’313 identity card anywhere in the country.314 Moreover, they wish to see the continuation of the policy that every inhabitant of the ethnically mixed area has a bilingual identity card. Under the changed legislation, this is no longer guaranteed as any person is now (since 2005) free to apply for their card anywhere in Slovenia, and if they apply outside of the ethnically mixed area where the administrative offices only issue monolingual cards, they can actually have a monolingual identity card even if they are permanently resident in either of the two ethnically mixed areas.
In practice, in 2010, 525 individuals opted for a ‘monolingual’ (in effect bilingual – Slovenian- English) identity card, although they live in an ethnically mixed area (see Table 1 below). The reasons for their behaviour are not known. In a telephone interview with the author, however, a representative of the Ministry of the Interior did mention that the new legislative solution whereby individuals resident in ethnically mixed areas can opt for a ‘monolingual’ identity card if they apply for this card with an administrative office outside of their ethnically mixed area, has resolved those disagreements expressed by some individuals living in the ethnically mixed areas who had been dissatisfied that they had been forced to have ‘bilingual’ personal documents.315
2010 – Identity card applications in the Republic of Slovenia 313,198 identity cards issued in the entire Republic of Slovenia 18,283 applications where placed with an administrative office outside of the applicants’ area in which they permanently reside
312 Quoted in Milanov, 2011, p. 8. 313 The term 'bilingual identity card' is still popularly in used although every card in Slovenia is at least bilingual (Slovenian-English) because this document can be used for travelling to some 35 countries (as of April 2011). The 'bilingual identity cards' are therefore actually trilingual. 314 Informal interview with an adviser to the Italian and Hungarian National Communities, Ljubljana, 12 May 2011. 315 Telephone interview with a representative of the Ministry of the Interior, 23 May 2011.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 74
801 applications were placed with an administrative office in an ethnically mixed area, by applicants not permanently residing in either of the two ethnically mixed areas 525 persons permanently living in an ethnically mixed area applied for their identity card with an administrative office outside of this area
Table 1. Applications for identity cards in 2010. Source: Ministry of the Interior.316
This debate is ever more important due to the intensive efforts by the government to simplify all administrative procedures in the country. As a part of these efforts, the ‘territorial principle’ is being increasingly abolished. Minority members therefore fear that – although the changed legislation has not been prepared to either directly regulate minority rights, or with the intention to limit the use of minority languages – these changes will have long-term negative effects on the use and visibility of minority languages in the ethnically mixed areas in Slovenia.317 At the same time, the government seems to be determined to preserve the territorial principle of minority protection intact, possibly because it may be faced with extending minority rights to other minority communities living in Slovenia, in addition to Hungarians, Italians and the Roma.
The other reason for such a legislative approach towards the process of issuing identity cards appears to be related with the concept of autochthonous settlement of national communities in Slovenia. Given the relatively very high level of minority protection in Slovenia when compared to other European countries, particularly the neighbouring ones, the government seems to be determined that these minority rights are to be enjoyed by those persons belonging to those national communities that have lived in Slovenia autochthonously. Even though the term ‘autochthonous settlement’ has never been defined in law, it is understood to apply to the Italian and Hungarian national communities. In effect, therefore, the legislative changes applicable to a discussion about languages and language diversity do not appear to have been made with a view to promoting linguistic diversity or multilingualism. Instead, the legislative changes seek to preserve the rights of persons belonging to national communities in line with the existing territorial principle of minority protection in Slovenia.
316 Quoted in Milanov, 2011, p. 8. 317 Personal interview with Dr. László Göncz, Hungarian MP in the National Assembly, Ljubljana, 24 May 2011.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 75
2.3 Case law on languages and minorities
The case law on languages and minorities in the Republic of Slovenia is not very extensive, which can be attributed to the fact that persons belonging to the relatively numerically weak national communities do not tend to use legal means to exercise their minority rights. However, there have been some very important cases brought before the Constitutional Court, both by persons belonging to national communities and by opponents to minority protection in Slovenia. Through these cases, the Constitutional Court has proven to be one of the strongest guardians of minority protection.
2.3.1 With respect to constitutional provisions
The constitutional provisions in Articles 5 and 64 have been subject to several cases brought before the Constitutional Court. Thus, in 1996, several (ethnic Slovenian) inhabitants of Koper handed to the constitutional Court an application on the allegedly unconstitutional character of the dual voting right of persons belonging to national communities, whereby every persons belonging to national communities has the right to enlist him- or herself to the special electoral register of his/her national community, which enables him/her to exercise both the general voting right (as a citizen of Slovenia) and a special voting right for the election of minority representatives. The Constitutional Court ruled that the right to two votes of persons belonging to minorities at elections was not unconstitutional.318 However, the Court declared as unconstitutional the lack of any criteria in use, in the relevant legislation, by commissions of the Italian and the Hungarian self-governing national community in the process of enlisting voters to the special electoral registers of the Italian and the Hungarian national community.319 This issue remains unresolved as the national communities have so far failed to prepare such criteria.
In 1999, the Constitutional Court rejected (based on the lack of legal interest) the application of the Slovenian National Party against the use of national symbols of the Italian and Hungarian
318 Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia, Decision No. U-I-283/94 (6 June 1996), available at http://odlocitve.us-rs.si/usrs/us-odl.nsf/o/E10C5A337D4BC67DC125717200280DB7 (27 March 2011). 319 Ibid.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 76
national community.320 The Constitutional Court was of the opinion that Article 64 of the Constitution, which allows the autochthonous Italian and Hungarian national community and persons belonging to them the use of their national symbols – even if these symbols are identical to the Italian or Hungarian state symbols.321
One issue also discussed by the Constitutional Court was the issue of national community representation in municipality councils. In 2000, the Constitutional Court rejected an application by two persons belonging to the Hungarian community arguing for such direct minority representation, but it did so because the National Assembly had in the meantime changed the legislation on the formation of new municipalities in a manner that provided for direct representation in municipality councils of a national community in accordance with Article 64 of the 1991 Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia.322
With respect to minority protection in Slovenia, the Constitutional Court has been recently primarily occupied with the Roma community, rather than with the rights of the Italian and Hungarian national communities. The key issue in many cases before the Constitutional Court has been the issue of political rights for the Roma at the local level. As this is case law specific to the Roma community, it will not be analysed in greater detail here. Many key decisions by the Constitutional Court on the municipalities in which the Roma live autochthonously, and on the exercise of their right in those municipalities, are discussed in Slovenia’s reports under the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and in the opinions of its Advisory Committee.
2.3.2 With respect to language legislation
The Constitutional Court has adopted a number of important decisions on the use of minority languages, and it has discussed many issues with respect to language-related legislation. Thus, the
320 Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia, Decision No. U-I-296/94 (28 January 1999), available at http://odlocitve.us-rs.si/usrs/us-odl.nsf/o/C63B4C09D2191BB6C125717200280E31 (27 March 2011). 321 Ibid. 322 Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia, Decision No. U-I-350/98 (6 April 2000), available at http://odlocitve.us-rs.si/usrs/us-odl.nsf/o/53FEAAA25E5496B5C125717200280EB4 (27 March 2011).
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 77
Constitutional Court has upheld the obligatory bilingualism in private enterprises in their contacts with customers in ethnically mixed areas since “persons belonging to national minorities can only effectively enjoy their rights when they can use the language they best know and understand.”323 The provisions on freedom of economic activity do not limit that right.324
Similarly, the Constitutional Court made it very clear – in its important decision in 2008 on names of societies325 – that Italian and Hungarian languages in the ethnically mixed areas cannot be considered foreign languages.326 Consequently, the Constitutional Court ruled that Italian and Hungarian as languages of the autochthonous national communities in the ethnically mixed areas cannot be used, alongside Slovenian, as “a translation”.327 Instead, “a manner for their direct use” has to be determined.328
Before the courts, persons belonging to the Italian and Hungarian national community have the right, in ethnically mixed areas, to use their mother tongue in all procedures, at all levels. In 2007, following a complaint by an individual claiming to belong to the Italian national community, the Constitutional Court ruled that individuals can waive this right and if they declare that they understand the language in which the procedure is conducted, the use of the Slovenian will not violate the constitutional guarantees on minority protection and on other fundamental human rights.329
In 1997, the Constitutional Court rejected a constitutional complaint by a Hungarian speaker because the complaint was handed in too late.330 This case is nevertheless important as it represents one of the rather few explicit complaints by persons belonging to the Hungarian
323 Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia, Decision No. U-I-218/04-8 (13 October 2004), available at http://odlocitve.us-rs.si/usrs/us-odl.nsf/o/1155ED8320C7D857C125717200288EBA (27 March 2011), point 5. 324 Ibid., point 1. 325 See section 1.10 above. 326 Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia, Decision No. U-I-380/06-11 (11 September 2008), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 91/2008 (26 September 2008). 327 Ibid., point 13. 328 Ibid. 329 Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia, Decision No. Up-404/05-13 (21 June 2007), available at http://odlocitve.us-rs.si/usrs/us-odl.nsf/o/99D333AC9AB40944C1257314003B3B6E (27 March 2011). 330 Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia, Decision No. Up-300/97 (19 December 1997), available at http://odlocitve.us-rs.si/usrs/us-odl.nsf/o/AF52681C4D1185DFC1257172002A2933 (27 March 2011).
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 78
community about the insufficient implementation of the linguistic rights of national minorities in Slovenia. The individual complained that as a member of the Hungarian national community and not fluent in Slovenian, he took part in a court procedure on inheritance in Hungarian, but the minutes of this procedure as well as the final decision were written in Slovenian, and not signed by the interpreter. The client therefore felt that his rights, including minority rights set up in Article 64 of the Constitution, were violated.331
2.3.3 With respect to education legislation
As already pointed out,332 the Constitutional Court discussed the issue of an allegedly insufficient number of teachers fluent in Hungarian in the bilingual high school in Lendava/Lendva.333 A much more fundamental and important decision with respect to legislation on education as it applies to national communities, and in particular to the Hungarian national community, was adopted by the Constitutional Court in 1998, with regard to a constitutional complaint by three individuals from the Slovenian-Hungarian ethnically mixed area, in which they argued against the obligatory bilingual kindergartens and schools.334 According to the complainants, bilingual education “puts Slovenian children in an unequal position in comparison to children from all other parts of Slovenia where the language of instruction for persons belonging to the Slovenian nation is Slovenian.”335 Furthermore, they argued that bilingual education is also unconstitutional in comparison to the monolingual education in the Slovenian-Italian ethnically mixed area because children in both areas are required to acquire different levels of the respective minority language.336 The complainants argued that bilingual education “requires from children more effort”, which affects the level of their substantive knowledge in other subjects and leads to a lower level of the Slovenian language.337 The complainants explicitly wrote that they were “not against learning the
331 Ibid. 332 See previous section 2.3.2. 333 Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia, Decision No. Up-300/00 (11 October 2000), available at http://odlocitve.us-rs.si/usrs/us-odl.nsf/o/F723CFA5D130A240C12571720028F422 (27 March 2011). 334 Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia, Decision No. U-I-94/96 (22 October 1998), available at http://odlocitve.us-rs.si/usrs/us-odl.nsf/o/D10587DE320C43DCC125717200280E0F (27 March 2011). 335 Ibid., point 1. 336 Ibid. 337 Ibid., point 2.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 79
Hungarian language” in general, but only against “such – bilingual – way of learning” the minority language.338
In its response to their complaint, the Constitutional Court – while considering historical circumstances in which bilingual education was established in 1959, the functioning and results of this education, as well as national legislation and bilateral and multilateral international norms on minority protection, including education – ruled that bilingual education in the Slovenian- Hungarian ethnically mixed area was not unconstitutional.339 The Court went as far as to suggest that the introduction of the ‘Italian model’ of education to the region of Prekmurje would “in effect lead to the end of bilingual education.”340 The Constitutional Court rejected the complainants’ argument that children in both ethnically mixed areas are in different situations because of different educational models, for all children have to take one additional obligatory subject (a language).341 Additionally, the complainants had not proven that “pupils in bilingual schools would be [based on quality of the acquired knowledge, measured by school grades and results of the final exam] in a different situation or even discriminated in comparison to other pupils (in ‘regular’ or minority schools).”342 Furthermore, bilingualism in school “does not violate the right of Slovenian children to use their language and script.”343 For all these reasons, the Constitutional Court did not rule bilingual education to be contrary to the Slovenian Constitution.
In 2000, the Constitutional Court rejected a constitutional complaint by a Hungarian speaker who had applied for a teaching post at the bilingual high school in Lendava but was not selected.344 Consequently, argued the complainant, the rights of pupils to education in their mother tongue were violated at that school where “allegedly several teachers were employed who did not master the Hungarian language”.345 The Court rejected the complaint based on the fact that not all legal means had been exhausted before the complaint was sent to the Constitutional Court.
338 Ibid. 339 Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia, Decision No. U-I-94/96 (22 October 1998). 340 Ibid., point 19. 341 Ibid., point 30. 342 Ibid., point 32. 343 Ibid. 344 Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia, Decision No. Up-300/00 (11 October 2000), available at http://odlocitve.us-rs.si/usrs/us-odl.nsf/o/F723CFA5D130A240C12571720028F422 (27 March 2011). 345 Ibid., point 1.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 80
2.3.4 With respect to media legislation
As opposed to case law on the use of minority languages or on education in the ethnically mixed areas, the Constitutional Court has not adopted any significant decision on the application and contents of Slovenia’s media legislation.
2.4 Practice of administrative organs and other supervisory organs
In general, the practice of administrative organs and other supervisory organs when it comes to the implementation of minority protection in Slovenia can be described as unsatisfactory. As noted by the Advisory Committee already in 2002, “it sometimes appears difficult in practice to make use of [these] legal provisions in relations with some state agencies, authorities or public services, largely because of the insufficient linguistic skills within the services concerned”, and the difficulties were found “mainly in relations with the police but also with the postal services, public hospitals, telecommunications undertakings and electricity suppliers.”346
The functioning of these organs with regard to minorities is not necessarily contrary to the legislation (i.e. illegal), but it appears to be restricted to the minimum requirements, or they seem to follow the approach of noting the problems, but stopping short of addressing them. On the other hand, persons belonging to national communities appear to be self-restrictive when it comes to using supervisory organs, or even when it comes to enjoying their minority rights. For example, it is estimated by the representatives of the Hungarian national community that the vast majority of ethnic Hungarians will not use Hungarian in every-day communication with the administrative authorities at the local level.347 Also, a representative of the Ministry of the Interior has reported that in 2010, the police received only three complaints about the lack of a possibility to use a minority language in communication with the police in the ethnically mixed areas.348
346 FCNM Advisory Committee’s Opinion on Slovenia 2002, paragraph 57. 347 Personal interview with Dr. László Göncz, Hungarian MP in the National Assembly, Ljubljana, 24 May 2011. 348 Presentation by a representative of the Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Slovenia, Ljubljana: Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 12 May 2011.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 81
2.4.1 With respect to constitutional provisions
In general, the overall constitutional system of minority protection, which includes the equality of a national minority language and the Slovenian language in the respective ethnically mixed area, have been implemented in practice – although not satisfactorily from the perspective of national communities. The lengthy process of socialisation as carried out in the educational system of the Republic of Slovenia has led to the awareness of the existence of two autochthonous national communities in Slovenia, and of the key elements of the minority rights enjoyed by these two communities and persons belonging to them.
Indeed, the representative of the Hungarian national community in the National Assembly has confirmed that the political elite in Slovenia, regardless of which political parties are in power, respect the constitutional provisions addressing the status and rights of both national communities in Slovenia.349 Ministers, parliamentarians and political party leaders do not tend to challenge the system. Perhaps the only notable exception was an initiative by the Slovenian National Party in the mid-1990s, which unsuccessfully challenged, before the Constitutional Court, the dual voting right of persons belonging to national communities.350 This right is derived from the constitutional provision on the rights of both national communities to each elect their representative (deputy) to the National Assembly. The dual voting right, which allows persons belonging to minorities to cast their voting preference twice (i.e. as Slovenian citizens and as minority members) has been implemented without any problems.
While the political elite in Slovenia generally recognises and respects the constitutional status and rights of both national communities, a somewhat different attitude can be observed at the level of public administration, both at the national (in ministries and other governmental agencies), and particularly at the local level.351 Administrative offices and municipal bodies are the organs where persons belonging to national communities probably experience most deviations from the constitutional system of minority protection. Such ‘deviations’ tend to appear in the form of
349 Personal interview with Dr. László Göncz, Hungarian MP in the National Assembly, Ljubljana, 24 May 2011. 350 Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia, Decision No. U-I-296/94 (28 January 1999), available at http://odlocitve.us-rs.si/usrs/us-odl.nsf/o/C63B4C09D2191BB6C125717200280E31 (27 March 2011). 351 Empirical research by the author, as well as personal interview with Dr. László Göncz, Hungarian MP in the National Assembly, Ljubljana, 24 May 2011.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 82
questioning positive discrimination or special rights of persons belonging to national communities, rather than in the form of practice that would be contrary to the constitutional provisions on minority protection. Such problems have been described as certain attitudes, views or expressed comments.352 They can have a very powerful effect, particularly because these are the levels at which the politically declared goals are actually implemented in practice.
2.4.2 With respect to language legislation
The constitutional provision on the equality of the majority and minority languages as official languages in the ethnically mixed areas has been extensively supported in many different sector- specific laws. Accordingly, the use of language as provided for and regulated by legislation is perhaps the most important element of minority protection in Slovenia, together with the recognition of national minorities as collective entities that enjoy collective rights (in the form of establishing the self-governing national community as a legal personality) and with a systematic inclusion of minority representatives in decision-making processes at all levels of governance in Slovenia. Accordingly, its implementation is of vital significance for the protection and development of minority identities.
In this context, it is ever more worrying that many representatives of both national communities observe numerous problems with respect to effective implementation of bilingualism in both ethnically mixed areas. In general, they do not speak of illegality (i.e. purposeful disrespect of the language-related legislation). Instead, they seem to agree on two reasons for what they perceive as insufficient implementation of the language legislation in practice: firstly, the lack of actual linguistic skills among the dominant (ethnic Slovenian) population, which appears to be a somewhat bigger problem in the region of Prekmurje, and secondly, the lack of awareness of the existing rights at the national level as well as among persons belonging to national communities. This reason is closely related with the decreasing number of members of both national communities, and their ageing. All this makes the communities less vital.353
352 Empirical research by the author. 353 Empirical research by the author, as well as personal interview with Dr. László Göncz, Hungarian MP in the National Assembly, Ljubljana, 24 May 2011.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 83
Additionally, modern ways of living, particularly the movement of individuals from one part of Slovenia to another, or abroad, have created new needs and expectations. The public administration needs to follow suit. However, such new circumstances have also brought about a number of new challenges with regard to diversity management in general, and with respect to the use of minority languages, in particular. The abandonment of the so-called territorial responsibility of public administration (administrative offices) in 2005 is a notable example of a new policy that follows the new needs arising out of the increased mobility of the population, but at the same time touches upon the issue of the use of minority languages. This issue is particularly sensitive as both national communities are aware of their decreasing numbers and the ageing of their members.
2.4.3 With respect to education legislation
The legislation on education in Slovenia, characterised by the monolingual schools in the Italian- Slovenian area and the bilingual schools in the Hungarian-Slovenian area, has also been under some pressure, particularly in the area of Prekmurje. As seen above, the bilingual schooling is obligatory for all pupils in the ethnically mixed areas. All pupils are taught in both languages. Hungarian is therefore used and taught both as a mother tongue, and as a ‘language of the local environment’ (for pupils with Hungarian as their second language – i.e. not their mother tongue/primary language of communication at home).354 Such a system has – as it seems – all the necessary requirements to uphold and promote multiculturalism, including bilingualism, in the ethnically mixed areas. In practice, however, there seems to be a growing dissatisfaction with this system, from individuals of both the Slovenian nation and the Hungarian national community. Parents and researchers seem to agree that the system cannot be described as providing the best possible education to children in the ethnically mixed area.355
Consequently, some parents from the ethnically mixed area have resorted to individual solutions: they have enrolled their children in schools situated outside of the ethnically mixed area. This was made possible with the abandonment of the so-called school districts, paving the way for parental choice
354 Hozjan, 2007. 355 ELDIA Report on Slovenia, prepared by Anna Kolláth, Judit Gasparics, Annamária Gróf and Livija Horvat, University of Maribor, 2010, in the context of the structured context analysis.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 84
with respect to the choice of a school for their child. This change was not introduced with respect to national minorities in general, or the Hungarian national community in particular, but it has opened up opportunities to avoid the obligatory bilingual education for all children residing in the ethnically mixed area in the region of Prekmurje. There is no detailed data on the extent of such cases, but the phenomenon has been observed and perceived as a problem by persons belonging to minorities and by the leading Slovenian researchers in the issue-area of minority protection.356
This phenomenon is, however, not related solely (if at all) to the issue of bilingualism, but rather to the poor quality of bilingual schools, and in particular, to the lack of appropriate and necessary competences of teachers. In general, the problem is not their linguistic competence as such, but their specific subject-related linguistic competence, with the most notable problem existing with respect to natural science subjects. In other words, teaching of a language has not been recognised as problematic, but teaching of other specific subjects (e.g. biology, physics) in a language has been widely recognised as a significant problem as teachers generally lack appropriate competence.357
2.4.4 With respect to media legislation
In general, in the public discourse in Slovenia, national communities do not seem to be notably dissatisfied with the implementation of the media legislation as this was the case a few years ago.358 However, the financing of the units of the RTV Slovenia in both ethnically mixed areas is very costly, and national communities fear a reduction in funding in the future, particularly in the wake of the recent financial crisis.
2.5 Practice of international monitoring organs and courts with respect to language and minority issues in Slovenia
356 Informal interview with Dr. Miran Komac, Institute for Ethnic Studies, Ljubljana, 22 May 2011. 357 ELDIA Report on Slovenia, prepared by the University of Maribor, 2010, and personal interview with Dr. László Göncz, Hungarian MP in the National Assembly, Ljubljana, 24 May 2011. 358 See section 2.5 below, which reveals the changes in the media observed by international bodies such as the Advisory Committee under the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 85
The Human Rights Committee (monitoring the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) has so far not expressed any concerns with respect to language and minority issues as they apply to the Italian and Hungarian national communities in Slovenia. The Human Rights Committee has only noted “that the State party singles out Italians and Hungarians for special protection as minorities, including the right to political representation.”359 This observation, written in chapter 4 dealing with ‘principal subjects of concern’, was however followed by the following text: “While this protection is welcome, all minorities are entitled to protection of their rights under article 27. Immigrant communities constituting minorities under the meaning of article 27 are entitled to the benefit of that article.”360 In its subsequent Concluding Observations, the Human Rights Committee focused only on the Roma when it expressed its concern “about the difference in the status between the so-called “autochthonous” (indigenous) and “non-autochthonous” (new) Roma communities in the State party (arts. 26 and 27).”361
With regard to the implementation of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, the Advisory Committee, in its first opinion, had considered “that Slovenia has made particularly commendable efforts in respect of the Hungarian minority, notably as regards its status in such fields as education and participation in public affairs.”362 It had also noted that There is scope for improvement in the media sector concerning the Hungarian minority for which public radio and TV broadcasts should be significantly extended. In the field of education, efforts by the Italian minority to recruit and train qualified staff should be further supported. As regards the use of Hungarian and Italian in relations with administrative authorities, there remain shortcomings in the practical implementation of existing legal provisions.363
The Advisory Committee had welcomed both, “the existence of a well-developed legal framework” and “the substantial funding allocated to these two minorities”,364 but pointed out
359 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee :Slovenia. 21.09.1994. CCPR/C/79/Add.40. (Concluding Observations/Comments), 21 September 1994, paragraph 12. 360 Ibid. 361 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee: Slovenia. 25.07.2005. CCPR/CO/84/SVN. (Concluding Observations/Comments), 25 July 2005, paragraph 16. 362 FCNM Advisory Committee’s Opinion on Slovenia 2002, p. 2. 363 Ibid. 364 Ibid., paragraph 33.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 86
that “funding for cultural measures should not be restricted to the ‘ethnically mixed areas’.”365 Whereas the legal framework for the use of the majority and the minority languages in the ethnically mixed areas was welcomed, the Advisory Committee had been informed “that in these areas inhabited by the Hungarian and Italian national minorities, it sometimes appears difficult in practice to make use of the above-mentioned legal provisions in relations with some state agencies [e.g. the police, postal services, public hospitals, telecommunications undertakings and electricity suppliers], authorities or public services, largely because of the insufficient linguistic skills within the services concerned.”366
With respect to the bilingual education in the Slovenian-Hungarian ethnically mixed area, the Advisory Committee had noted that “the well-developed and effective system of bilingual primary and secondary schools set up as part of the public education system is a means of meeting the requirements of Article 12 of the Framework Convention, [… and welcomed] that this system seems to be appreciated by most of those concerned, whether they belong to the majority population or to the Hungarian minority.”367
Although the Republic of Slovenia, in its answers to the Advisory Committee’s initial opinion, recognised the need to improve its shortcomings, particularly with regard to the broadcasting in Hungarian, but also the actual use of minority languages in public administration.368 Some of these shortcomings have persisted over the years. In its second opinion of 2005,369 the Advisory Committee thus reiterated many of its observations from the first round of monitoring. In general, “[t]he Hungarian and Italian minorities continue to enjoy […] a high level of protection”, but shortcomings remain and “additional efforts should be made, at the central and, in particular, at the local level, in order to ensure that existing legal framework related to the promotion of their cultural identity, their access to media and the use of their languages in the public sphere is implemented more effectively.”370
365 Ibid., paragraph 34. 366 Ibid., paragraph 57. 367 Ibid., paragraph 60. 368 Comments of the Government of Slovenia on the Opinion of the Advisory Committee of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities in Slovenia (received on 14 March 2003), GVT/COM/INF/OP/I(2005)002. 369 See FCNM Advisory Committee’s Second Opinion on Slovenia 2005. 370 Ibid., p. 1.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 87
In particular, the Advisory Committee has noted that “the Hungarian and Italian minorities report problems in the practical application of the legislation concerning the use of the Hungarian and Italian languages in the public sphere, in the relevant regions.”371 With respect to the media, however, a significant improvement appears to have been made for the Hungarian national Community: The Advisory Committee is pleased to note the increased duration of television programming broadcast in Hungarian, and welcomes the setting up, in Lendava, of a public radio and television studio for the Hungarian minority. It expresses the hope that, by making full use of the transmission capacities of this new facility, the Hungarian community’s needs in the audio-visual sector can be met more fully, in accordance with the requirements laid down by Slovene law in this area.372
Importantly, with respect to the practical problems of the implementation of bilingualism, resulting primarily from inadequate linguistic knowledge of some public employees, the Advisory Committee has noted that these “shortcomings remain”.373 The Hungarians, in particular, as noted by the Advisory Committee, highlight the limited use of their language, in the geographical areas concerned, within public institutions, such as health care services, the post office or the police, due mainly to the low level of command of Hungarian by the public officials concerned. Their concern over this situation is reinforced by the fact that it seems to lead to a decrease in the interest among the young generation in studying this language[.]374
In order to improve this situation, Slovenia’s authorities have been encouraged “to take a more inclusive, proactive approach to the application of the legislation on the linguistic rights of persons belonging to national minorities, so as to make those rights accessible, to the extent possible, to persons residing outside the “ethnically mixed areas”.”375 In the meantime, Slovenia has made it possible, as observed also by the Advisory Committee, to (marginally) increase the flexibility of the geographical implementation of bilateral education so that the minority language can also be learned – at primary and secondary level – outside the “ethnically mixed area”, should a sufficient number off pupils request it.
371 Ibid., paragraph 16. 372 Ibid., paragraph 115. 373 Ibid., paragraph 130. 374 Ibid. 375 Ibid., paragraph 136.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 88
The Advisory Committee notes with satisfaction the low numerical criterion which is applied in this context (5 pupils).376
In the field of education, the Advisory Committee “is pleased to note that the Hungarian and Italian minorities in Slovenia continue to enjoy excellent opportunities to learn their mother tongue and to reinforce their linguistic identity through education.”377 However, the Advisory Committee also continuously notes (in its first and second reports) a problem regarding “the availability of suitable school textbooks for the Hungarian minority and qualified teachers for the Italian minority”,378 as well as “the problem of the excessive length of time taken to recognise qualifications obtained in Hungary and Italy”379 – this “despite the co-operation with both countries developed by Slovenia in this area.”380
2.6 Programmes and action plans on language use and language diversity
Since 2004 (i.e. since the adoption of the law on the public use of Slovenian), the government of Slovenia has been very active in the field of preparing language-related programmes and strategies. However, most of these efforts have been directed at the promotion and protection of the dominant language, rather than at promoting language diversity. In this context, the Italian and Hungarian languages are also always mentioned, with a view to upholding their legal equality as official languages in ethnically mixed areas. The government has not prepared any special programme or action plan addressing – or more specifically promoting – language diversity in Slovenia. To the extent that the government, particularly the Ministry of Culture, has been active in the field of language diversity, such efforts have been concentrated on providing opportunities for the learning of minority languages. In recent years, much attention has been directed to creating opportunities for the learning of former Yugoslav national languages, particularly Croatian and Serbian, but also Macedonian.381
376 Ibid., paragraph 139. 377 Ibid., paragraph 161. 378 Ibid., paragraph 138. 379 Ibid., paragraph 141. 380 Ibid. 381 See the results of a two-year project, in which the author participated, on the perceptions of a Slovenian integration policy, headed by Miran Komac (Percepcije slovenske integracijske politike – Perceptions of a Slovenian
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 89
Facing the low level of desirability of bilingual education in the Slovenian-Hungarian ethnically mixed area, representatives of the Hungarian national community are aware that the negative attitudes towards bilingualism warrant special attention and special programmes. For bilingualism has proven not to function very effectively and to the satisfaction of both national communities living in the ethnically mixed areas. Additionally, there appears to be a general lack of interest in the Hungarian language. Accordingly, the Hungarian national community has begun to think about necessary changes that would seek to promote the use of Hungarian and bilingualism as a special characteristic of the ethnically mixed area.382
As part of the overall legislative efforts leading to the adoption of an overall law on the Hungarian national community, representatives and institutions of this community have prepared a set of proposals touching upon the issue of the use of the Hungarian language.383 As this issue is closely related with education, although not limited to education, preparations of this ‘umbrella law’ have focused on what has been referred to as the process of updating the educational system. By ‘updating’, minority representatives mean the necessity to reform the bilingual education through the improvement of the competence of teachers, and above all by making bilingual schools more attractive, by offering interesting ways of teaching, promotion of different cultures, and crucially, ensuring the high quality of bilingual education.384 One of the key aspects to achieve this is to focus on teachers. A solution for increasing teacher competences for teaching in Hungarian (rather than teaching Hungarian), mentioned by the representatives of the Hungarian national community, is international exchange programmes for students to become teachers and for teachers. An opportunity should be provided for them to spend at least two semesters in Hungary, at Hungarian institutions of higher education.385
Integration Policy), CRP V5-0780-02, particularly the part on language issues (authored by Petra Roter); published in: Komac and Medvešek, 2004. 382 Personal interview with Dr. László Göncz, Hungarian MP in the National Assembly, Ljubljana, 24 May 2011. 383 Ibid. 384 Ibid. 385 Ibid.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 90
2.7 View on language and minority legislation in the wider public discourse and media
There has been no notable public discourse on languages in general, or minority legislation (as it applies to the Hungarian national community), in particular. In the media, however, the prevailing discourse appears to be focused, although rather implicitly than explicitly, on the protection of the Slovenian language, particularly in the context of globalisation and the prevailing use of English. In this respect, the discourse is concentrated on the issue of the actual use of languages, and it hardly touches upon the actual language legislation. There appear to be some possible exceptions in this respect – for example, with regard to the use of language in higher education, and in private enterprises. The discourses in both contexts are, however, very different. The private sector appears to favour the liberal view and argues against any regulations on the economic activity, whereby language requirements (i.e. obligatory bilingualism) are typically seen as an obstacle to the freedom of economic activity.
By contrast, at universities, the language-related public discourse is very much split into two poles: some academics publicly urge their fellow academics to use the Slovenian language, for they see the language as the gist of the Slovenian nation. Accordingly, the government and other institutions should provide for such conditions (e.g. in the system of quality assessment) that would favour the use of the Slovenian language. Such a goal has been specifically promoted by the government.386 The other notable (though not organised) group of academics, however, sees the promotion of Slovenia, Slovenian nation and Slovenia’s scholars as possible only through their effective and complete internationalisation. The latter, of course, includes publications in the best- quoted (predominantly English-language) journals and with the best international publishers.387
386 Resolution on the National Programme for Language Policy 2007–2011 (Resolucija o nacionalnem programu za jezikovno politiko 2007–2011 (ReNPJP0711)), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 43/2007 (18 May 2007), section 4.1.4. IV., goal No. 10. 387 This observation is based on empirical observations by the author, as a member of the Strategic Commission of the University of Ljubljana, and as a member of the senate of the Faculty of Social Sciences, as well as a former chair of the Commission on Quality at the Faculty of Social Sciences. See also section 1.3 above.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 91
2.8 Perceived effect of the examined legislation on the languages and language communities studied
In general, it is hard to assess any effects of the introduction of the above examined legislation relevant for national communities on the situation of the Hungarian language and the Hungarian national community as much of this legislation has been in effect for a rather lengthy period of time. According to the Hungarian representative in the National Assembly, this legislation, particularly the introduction and protection of the bilingual educational system in the Slovenian- Hungarian ethnically mixed area, has made it possible to preserve the existence of the small Hungarian national community in the region of Prekmurje and the ethnically mixed character of this region.388
Although many problems still persist – despite the changed legislation that was expected to address them, many Hungarian intellectuals and the political elite is aware that the small numerical strength and ageing of this community, as well as the challenges posed by the increased mobility of people, affect the actual effects and implementation of Slovenia’s legislation on minority protection and on the use of languages in particular.
Some recent changes in legislation (such as the abandonment of the so-called territoriality principle for the issuing of personal documents such as identity cards) have, however, been met with a very negative attitude among (at least some) persons belonging to the Hungarian (and Italian) national community. Such changes, as explained in greater detail above,389 have been seen as a gradual erosion of the legal framework for the equal use of both languages in the ethnically mixed areas in Slovenia, which has been traditionally based on the mandatory application of the visible bilingualism to the entire population living in those areas, rather than solely to persons belonging to one of the autochthonous national communities.
3 The legal actors
388 Personal interview with Dr. László Göncz, Hungarian MP in the National Assembly, Ljubljana, 24 May 2011. 389 See sections 2.1.2 and 2.2 above.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 92
3.1 Minority and language group actors involved in legal and policy debates
In Slovenia, the key legal actors representing both national communities are the so-called self- governing national communities, established as legal entities in accordance with national legislation. Thus, in every ethnically mixed municipality where the Hungarian national community lives autochthonously (i.e. in Lendava, Dobrovnik, Moravske Toplice, Šalovci in Hodoš), persons belonging to this community are organised in municipal Hungarian self-governing communities. Each of these municipal self-governing Hungarian national communities elects representatives to its council, serving as the highest form of organisation of the national community in each of the five ethnically mixed municipalities. These municipal councils and their members serve as political representatives of the Hungarian national community in the system of local self-government.390
Municipality councillors (i.e. the elected delegates to the municipal councils of the Hungarian self- governing national community) participate in the umbrella organisation – the regional self- governing national community. The Hungarian national community is thus organised within the Pomurje Hungarian Self-Governing National Community, with its seat in Lendava/Lendva. As an umbrella organisation of the Hungarian national community living in the Republic of Slovenia, it is composed of 21 members: ten members are from the municipality council of the self-governing national community in the municipality of Lendava, four are from such a council in the municipality of Dobrovnik, three from the council in the municipality of Moravske Toplice, and two are from each of the councils of the municipalities of Hodoš and Šalovci.391
At the central level, persons belonging to the two autochthonous national communities elect two members of the parliament (National Assembly) – one member is elected by each of the national communities. As already discussed,392 persons belonging to one of the national communities have a dual voting right for these elections and at the local level, where they both elect municipality councillors and their representatives in the municipal councils.
390 See Office for Nationalities, available at http://www.uvn.gov.si/si/manjsine/madzarska_narodna _skupnost/ (10 April 2011), point 3). 391 Ibid. 392 See sections 2.3.1 and 2.4.1 above.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 93
These are the actors that would be typically most involved in any legal and policy debates about minority protection in general or linguistic rights in particular. Among all the actors, both representatives in the National Assembly have to be singled out due to their visibility and role in the public. Indeed, an average inhabitant of Slovenia would most likely only be aware of these minority actors as all other Hungarian minority representatives hardly ever appear in the public (i.e. in the media that can be accessed across the country).
There are a number of other Hungarian civil society actors more active at the local level, in the region of Prekmurje. In this respect, the Hungarian cultural centre Bánffy393 in Lendava/Lendva has to be mentioned – particularly as a centre for different social events. The Bánffy centre exists within the Institute for the culture of the Hungarian nationality (Zavoda za kulturo madžarske narodnosti) whose director has been active also nationally – as a representative of the Hungarian national community in the Working group established by the governmental Commission on Nationalities.
3.2 Other actors
There appears to be two other types of actors whom Hungarian representatives communicate with the most. On the one hand, a number of so-called civil society actors tends to be involved in legal and policy debates on minority protection. In this respect, researchers (particularly those at the Institute for Ethnic Studies) are typically involved in such debates, although this involvement is often ‘behind the scenes’. They tend to provide advice and their expertise so that minority representatives are better equipped when participating in such debates.394
The second most notable actor with whom the Italian and Hungarian representatives regularly communicate is the Office for Nationalities, particularly its director (at present Stanko Baluh, MA). This governmental body plays a very important role395 in Slovenia’s system of minority protection
393 More details in section 1.10 above. 394 Empirical research by the author. 395 See also section 3.5 below.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 94
– i.e. as a ‘mediator’ or a liaison between the government (also sometimes the National Assembly) on one hand, and national community representatives, on the other hand.396
3.3 Channels of participation in language related matters
According to Slovenia’s legislation, persons belonging to national communities and different minority actors have access to very broad channels of participation that extend to all levels of the decision-making process – i.e. from the local to the central level – and include the right to veto decisions if such decisions are believed to be contrary to the interests of national communities. Indeed, as explained by the Republic of Slovenia in its initial report under the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities: The entire electoral legislation in Slovenia guarantees to members of the Italian and Hungarian minorities representation at all levels of decision-making, from municipal councils to the National Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia. Decisions and laws relating only to special rights of both minorities cannot be adopted without the prior consent of representatives of the minorities […].397
Importantly, minority representatives participate in all activities of the parliament (National Assembly), and preside over the Commission of the National Assembly for Nationalities as a body primarily responsible for addressing issues appertaining to minority protection in Slovenia. All legislation addressing any aspect of minority protection is discussed also by this Commission.
Further, minority representatives sit in the governmental Commission on Nationalities, and have participated in the Working group appointed by the government as an expert body of the governmental Commission on Nationalities, to discuss the system of minority protection in Slovenia.398
In general, the Hungarian national community (as well as the Italian national community) have at their disposal numerous channels of participation in the decision-making processes on minority
396 Empirical research by the author. 397 FCNM Slovenia’s Report 2000, paragraph 37. 398 The author of this report has also been a member of this Working group.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 95
protection, including decisions on the linguistic rights. It is questionable, however, how these channels can be used effectively.
3.4 Use of channels of participation in practice
Persons belonging to the Hungarian national community and their representatives regularly use all available channels of participation in the decision-making processes on national minority protection, including in language-related issues. The problem is, however, that the effectiveness of such participation is rather poor. In particular, minority representatives, as well as other actors involved with the Hungarian national community or interested in minority protection in general, are not in fact consulted on issues of their concern.399 In practice, the veto power has never been used although there have been pieces of draft legislation that were clearly not acceptable to the national communities.
On a number of occasions, as the minutes of the parliamentary Commission for Nationalities reveal,400 the representatives of national communities expressed their dissatisfaction with individual pieces of legislation, but to no avail. Indeed, it is not entirely clear how (in which matters and at which stages of the legislative process) the veto power can actually be used.401 Instead, the national communities appear to turn to the Constitutional Court as a last resort if it is believed that the new legislation violates their constitutionally guaranteed rights, including the right to use their language on an equal footing with the Slovenian language. At present, for example, the national communities are discussing a possible appeal before the Constitutional Court concerning the legislation on identity cards.402
In addition, national communities are not consulted in any meaningful way during the process of the preparation of state reports under international conventions and monitoring systems. Indeed, the Advisory Committee under the Framework Convention for the Protection of National
399 Empirical research by the author, particularly informal interviews with representatives of the Hungarian national community, both political and civil society actors, and with experts on minority protection in Slovenia. 400 Available at the website of the National Assembly's, at http://www.dr-rs.si (10 April 2011). 401 Informal interview with Dr. Miran Komac, Institute for Ethnic Studies, Ljubljana, 22 May 2011. 402 Informal interview with an adviser to the Italian and Hungarian National Communities, Ljubljana, 12 May 2011.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 96
Minorities has regretted such limited minority participation in this process when it wrote, in its second opinion: The Advisory Committee welcomes the Slovene authorities’ willingness to pursue, in the context of the second cycle of monitoring of the Framework Convention, the dialogue on the implementation of this convention is Slovenia. It regrets, however, that this dialogue has not been broader at the national level and that only a limited number of organisations representing minorities were consulted in the process of drafting the State report.403
Furthermore, as noted by the Advisory Committee, It is unfortunate that representatives of national minorities and Slovene civil society were able only belatedly to acquaint themselves with the findings of the first cycle of monitoring of the application of the Framework Convention, the Opinion of the Advisory Committee and the government’s comments theron, which were published just prior to the Advisory Committee’s second-cycle visit to Slovenia.404
This appears to be characteristic for Slovenia’s authorities and their willingness to involve minority representatives. It would seem that minority participation is guaranteed, but only for the sake of fulfilling international standards on minority protection, rather than to conduct a meaningful dialogue with national communities.
3.5 Institutions responsible for minority and language policies
As already mentioned above,405 perhaps the most significant institution with respect to implementing language and minority policies in general is the governmental Office for Nationalities. Its role is ever more important because the bulk of finances for minority protection (e.g. for the functioning of self-governing national communities) is distributed through this Office.
Although this is a governmental agency, it has managed to establish itself – throughout its lengthy history (it was established on 3 April 1959) – as a trust-worthy actor, generally also perceived as a more ‘neutral’ actor that would represent the interests of national communities in the government, rather than any governmental interests that would be contrary to those of both national
403 FCNM Advisory Committee’s Second Opinion on Slovenia 2005, paragraph 6. 404 Ibid., paragraph 7. 405 Section 3.2 above.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 97
communities (and the Roma). This is perhaps not surprising given its fundamental function: to follow and monitor the implementation of constitutional and other norms establishing special rights of persons belonging to the Italian and Hungarian national communities, and recently, also of the Roma community.406
Of course, this Office for Nationalities does not create minority-related policies. These, as well as language policies, are largely prepared by the Ministry of Culture. As explained above,407 the Ministry of Culture is directly responsible for the implementation of the Law on the Public Use of Slovenian, which marks a turning point in Slovenia’s regulation of languages.
Interestingly enough, however, the Ministry of Culture is not responsible for co-ordinating the process of reporting under international treaties, such as the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. This role has been assigned to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (although this ministry does not co-ordinate all of Slovenia’s international obligations under human rights treaties). This organisation and the division of responsibilities reflects the significance of minority protection for Slovenia, which is always seen in the context of Slovenia being both a home state for national minorities living in Slovenia, and a kin-state for ethnic Slovenians living in other (mainly) neighbouring states.408 This division of work, however, also appears to present some practical problems for the reporting process that are reflected in the timing of report submission as well as with regard to the less than satisfactory consultation with national communities and other ethnic groups living in the Republic of Slovenia.
3.6 The role of the kin-state or country of origin in language maintenance
Hungary as Slovenia’s Hungarian national community’s kin-state plays many different – direct and indirect – roles when it comes to language maintenance of the Hungarian language in Slovenia. On the one hand, the Hungarian national community is aware that in order to continue existing as a special ethnic community in Slovenia, close contacts with the kin-state and the kin-nation have to be
406 See Office for Nationalities, available at http://www.uvn.gov.si/si/delovno_podrocje/ (10 April 2011). 407 See section 1.3. 408 See section 1.1 above.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 98
maintained. In this respect, the Hungarian representatives in Slovenia as well as the Hungarian government aim to ensure that every Hungarian student and teacher will spend at least one semester in Hungary, with a view to learning the Hungarian language as it is spoken in Hungary. This is perceived as a crucial element in preserving the vitality of the Hungarian national community in Slovenia.409
The Hungarian national community and the authorities in Slovenia also agree that the bilingual education can only be manageable with the assistance of Hungary; such help extends to ‘importing’ Hungarian teachers from Hungary and at least some teaching materials. But problems persist as teachers as well as teaching materials should in principle be bilingual. This is particularly difficult to achieve among teachers and it is generally understood that many teachers indeed lack proficiency in both languages.
Persons belonging to the Hungarian national minority (and their spouses who may not be Hungarian) in Slovenia are, like any other Hungarian national minority, entitled to many other benefits Hungary provides to its ‘kin’ who live in other states, particularly neighbouring states. These benefits are based on the widely criticised Hungarian status law.410 Such advantages offered by Hungary to persons belonging to the Hungarian national community and to their partners regardless of their national affiliation extend to the areas of “education, transport, museums, libraries, archives”.411 As noted by the government of Slovenia in its report under the Framework Convention, prepared just a couple of years after the status law had been adopted in Hungary, some one quarter of the Hungarians living in Slovenia applied for the relevant cards with which they could enjoy the benefits provided by Hungary: According to the data provided by the Lendava information office, 1785 cards were issued by 22 January 2004. Sixty-five cards were issued to secondary school students, 45 to teachers, 54 to spouses, while the remaining went to members of the minority. To date, 4 applications have been rejected.412
409 Personal interview with Dr. László Göncz, Hungarian MP in the National Assembly, Ljubljana, 24 May 2011. 410 For a detailed discussion about the contents and implications of the Status Law see Kántor et al., 2004. 411 FCNM Slovenia’s Second Report 2004, p. 27. 412 Ibid.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 99
On the one hand, Hungary’s role is very significant for the promotion and protection of the Hungarian language and culture in Slovenia. Hungary, however, is also part of the problem for the situation of the Hungarian national community in Slovenia. Indirectly, Hungary appears to play a rather negative role in the protection of Hungarians in Slovenia’s region of Prekmurje. Not only is Hungary generally perceived as a nationalising (and nationalistic), overly eager kin-state,413 but it appears to have failed to satisfactorily protect its own national minorities. This is particularly the case for the Slovenian national minority in Hungary, which struggles every year to get the necessary finances for the maintenance of its cultural institutions, and it has failed to secure a seat in the Hungarian parliament (as it is guaranteed to the Hungarian national community in Slovenia).414
These struggles of the Slovenian national minority in Hungary are very much part of the public discourse in Slovenia. These issues are discussed and reported in the media on a regular basis. All this has led to the general perception in Slovenia of Hungary as following double standards. More importantly, this public discourse in Slovenia clearly and notably puts Slovenia’s minority protection in the context of reciprocity. Whereas Slovenia’s authorities are well aware that reciprocity as a condition for the implementation of human rights is not acceptable in the context of the European set of norms on minority protection, the public and some right-wing and nationalist politicians do not take this into account. On the contrary, any debate about improving Slovenia’s minority protection or about meeting the needs of national communities and their members will likely be characterised by comparisons of Slovenia’s obligations towards its minorities and the situation of Slovenian national minorities in neighbouring countries.
4 Concluding remarks
4.1 Regulation of the languages and language communities in the legal and institutional system
The use of the Hungarian language, as well as the use of the majority language in Slovenia (i.e.
413 For the analysis of fierce international responses see, among many others, Nagy, 2007 and Stewart, 2009. 414 This is one of the key goals of the Slovenian community in Hungary. See Ružič, 2011.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 100
Slovenian), are highly regulated. As language is one of the key identity markers for all national communities living in the Republic of Slovenia, such regulation is not very surprising. Slovenia’s legislation on minority protection and the general legislation pay special attention to the regulation of the equal use of Slovenian and Hungarian in the ethnically mixed area where both languages are official languages.
This regulation of the Hungarian (as well as Italian) language and of the minority rights of both national communities may appear extensive, though it is not implemented in practice to the satisfaction of the communities concerned. Yet, the legal framework is significant in the sense that it provides safeguards for both communities. This is particularly important in the context of occasionally expressed views about disproportionate expenses for very small communities, or about disproportionate Slovenia’s support to its national communities when compared to support to Slovenian minorities in Slovenia’s neighbours.
4.2 Attitudes towards the legal and institutional regulation of the languages and language communities
In general, the regulation of minority languages and minority protection is perceived as positive, both by representatives of the Hungarian national community415 and by the authorities. For the latter, minority protection including the extensive regulation of the equality of the majority and minority languages in the ethnically mixed area has been seen as a proof that Slovenia more than meets the European norms on minority protection, and that it has done so for decades. Accordingly, the government of Slovenia has not intended to change the regulation of minority rights and the use of minority languages (i.e. Hungarian and Italian). This approach was also adopted when the government introduced new regulations (new legislation) on the use of the Slovenian language. Such new regulations did not negatively affect the minority protection of the traditional, autochthonous national communities.
However, if the goal and the contents of such legal and institutional regulation of the languages of
415 Personal interview with Dr. László Göncz, Hungarian MP in the National Assembly, Ljubljana, 24 May 2011.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 101
national communities in Slovenia are not considered problematic, the implementation of such regulation is. For the Hungarian national community, such extensive regulation of bilingualism and the equal use of Slovenian and Hungarian have not been able to increase the actual use of Hungarian in different situations in the public sphere. Admittedly, a set of different circumstances (not just the legislation) have played a role in this process, including the small size of the community, its decreasing numbers and ageing membership, and the fact that the region of Prekmurje is among the economically least developed areas of Slovenia and people, including persons belonging to the Hungarian national community, would increasingly seek opportunities elsewhere.
4.3 The position of language diversity in the legal and political system
As explained in greater detail above,416 Slovenia’s long-established approach towards languages can be described as a dual approach consisting of a territorially limited promotion of ‘domestic’ language diversity (i.e. diversity as it applies to languages spoken by Slovenia’s autochthonous communities: Slovenians and Hungarians or Italians) on the one hand, and, on the other hand, of the recognition that individuals’ knowledge of at least one widely spoken foreign language is an absolute necessity, and should be promoted as such.
Thus, the attitudes in Slovenia towards language diversity and multilingualism are mixed, whereas the policies regulating the use of languages in the public domain appear both very complex and confusing. Slovenia’s educational system has been strongly promoting multi-lingualism for individuals for a long time, but the use of more than one language has not been promoted in the public domain: before courts, in contacts with authorities, in media.
At the societal level, language diversity has been promoted solely in the ethnically mixed areas where the Italian and Hungarian communities reside. Slovenia’s legal system strictly provides for the equal use of both official languages in the ethnically mixed areas.417 This is also reflected in the educational system where in both ethnically mixed areas, all pupils need to learn both languages –
416 See section 1.3. 417 The Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia, 1991, Article 11.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 102
in bilingual schools (in the Hungarian ethnically mixed area). Language diversity in the form of bilingualism in the ethnically mixed areas has been upheld in the legal and political spheres. All official relations can be conducted in either of the two languages, and all official documents and visible signs have to be available in both languages. Slovenia’s ‘domestic’ language diversity therefore extends to its legal, political and educational systems.
4.4 The overall quality of the legal system in language matters
In terms of the accessibility of Slovenia’s legal system in Hungarian language matters, no single assessment can be made. On the one hand, accessibility appears to be high in the educational system where bilingual schools have been a key institution for learning and promoting the Hungarian language, and with it also the Hungarian culture and history. By contrast, accessibility in other fields is rather limited. There is a very complex legislation that awards public employees in the ethnically mixed areas for their knowledge of the Hungarian or Italian language. However, not many Hungarians seem to be aware of all these possibilities, and in particular, they do not use all the institutional means available to complain when public employees cannot speak the Hungarian language in areas where it is an official language. In this respect, it is also important to note that linguistic rights (as well as most other minority rights) are not available outside of the ethnically mixed area.
In terms of availability of minority rights, including linguistic rights, these can be described as widely available, but only in the ethnically mixed areas, which are also officially bilingual. As the modern way of living has increased migrations, such a geographically defined availability of linguistic rights may no longer serve the needs of at least some persons belonging to the Hungarian national community. Of course, it would be very hard (i.e. costly) to extend the same approach to minority protection to other areas, but some rights could easily be extended and hence made available also to Hungarians not living in the ethnically mixed area.
With regard to adaptability, the legislation on the use of Hungarian in Slovenia can be described as not very adaptable. While this is problematic for those individuals who no longer live in the
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 103
ethnically mixed area, such negative approach towards adaptability of bilingualism can be also credited with safeguarding the high level of minority protection in Slovenia and the principle that such protection is to be guaranteed and financed by Slovenia regardless of the size of the national communities in question. This ‘conservative’ approach has prevented any changes – including those that may be needed and are desired by the Hungarian national community itself.
In terms of acceptability, the Hungarian national community has fully accepted such minority legislation in the sense of its goals and contents. However, as the legislation is complex and consequently non-transparent, it is not implemented effectively. Precisely for the lack of effective implementation, caused also by too complex legislation, the Hungarian political elite has advocated the adoption of an ‘umbrella’ law. As of early May 2011, the draft law is in preparation.
As already mentioned, Slovenia’s legislation on minority protection in general is very complex and non-transparent. However, it cannot be described as lacking coherence. The only notable deviation in this respect has been the new approach in public administration in the area of personal documents. As these can now be obtained anywhere in the country, the obligatory possession of bilingual personal documents in the ethnically mixed areas can now be avoided. This affects one of the fundamental principles of Slovenia’s minority protection – namely, that the regulation of the use of both languages applies to all the inhabitants of the ethnically mixed areas, not just persons belonging to minorities.
In general, the legislation on minority protection can be described as stable. A litmus test for the legal equality of the majority and the minority languages in ethnically mixed areas was the adoption of new language legislation aimed to protect the Slovenian language. This legislation left the regulation of national community languages intact. Although the legislation in Slovenian is anything but stable as virtually every law sees several amendments, the legislation on minority protection remains largely unchanged. There have been, however, some notable exceptions although these were generally adopted to pursue other specific goals, rather than on purpose to worsen the situation for both national communities. Nevertheless, the mere fact that the national communities were upset by such changes proves that the system of consultation and participation of national communities in the decision-making process is not very effective.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 104
For all these reasons, representatives of the Hungarian national community in Slovenia would not describe the legislation on minority protection as efficient. Indeed, the legislation has not been able to prevent some of the problematic tendencies in the Hungarian community. With such a small national community, faced with many factors unfavourable to this community, legislation on minority protection only cannot and will not guarantee its ‘survival’ as a distinct national community. For legislation cannot bring about the belief that national and linguistic diversity is a value for everyone.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 105
List of references
Administrative office Murska Sobota/Upravna enota Murska Sobota: About the administrative office (O Upravni enoti), available at http://www.upravneenote.gov.si/murska_sobota/o_upravni_enoti/ (15 April 2011).
Amnesty International (2011). Parallel Lives: Roma denied rights to housing and water in Slovenia. London: Amnesty International, available at http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/EUR68/005/2011/en/8a225f13-4f26-44c9-9078- 85bcfa6fa0d2/eur680052011en.pdf (2 March 2011).
Bešter, Romana and Mojca Medvešek (2007). Education of the Roma children in Slovenia: evaluation of the education policy defined in National action plan on social inclusion. In: Miran Komac and Romeo Varga (eds.). Social inclusion of Roma: stories from Finland, Slovakia, Slovenia and Portugal, pp. 129–183. Ljubljana: Institute for Ethnic Studies; Murska Sobota: Regional Development Agency Mura.
Comments of the Government of Slovenia on the Opinion of the Advisory Committee of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities in Slovenia (received on 14 March 2003), GVT/COM/INF/OP/I(2005)002.
Commission of the European Communities (1998). Regular Report from the Commission on Slovenia’s Progress towards Accession, November 1998, available at http://ec.europa. eu/enlargement/archives/pdf/key_documents/1998/slovenia_en.pdf (17 March 2011).
Commission of the European Communities (2002). Regular Report on Slovenia’s Progress towards Accession, 9 October 2002, SEC(2002) 1411.
Commission of the National Assembly for Nationalities, 17th session, 12 January 2011, available at http://www.dz-rs.si/index.php?id=96&cs=4&committee=23&unid=PMT| C828CE63EAF28447C125781B0040FBF6&showdoc=1 (27 February 2011).
Concluding observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: Slovenia, 2 June 2003, CERD/C/62/CO/9.
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia, Decision No. U-I-283/94 (6 June 1996), available at http://odlocitve.us-rs.si/usrs/us-odl.nsf/o/ E10C5A337D4BC67DC125717200280DB7 (27 March 2011).
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 106
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia, Decision No. Up-300/97 (19 December 1997), available at http://odlocitve.us-rs.si/usrs/us-odl.nsf/o/ AF52681C4D1185DFC1257172002A2933 (27 March 2011).
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia, Decision No. U-I-94/96 (22 October 1998), available at http://odlocitve.us-rs.si/usrs/us-odl.nsf/o/ D10587DE320C43DCC125717200280E0F (27 March 2011).
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia, Decision No. U-I-296/94 (28 January 1999), available at http://odlocitve.us-rs.si/usrs/us-odl.nsf/o/ C63B4C09D2191BB6C125717200280E31 (27 March 2011).
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia, Decision No. U-I-350/98 (6 April 2000), available at http://odlocitve.us-rs.si/usrs/us-odl.nsf/o/ 53FEAAA25E5496B5C125717200280EB4 (27 March 2011).
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia, Decision No. Up-300/00 (11 October 2000), available at http://odlocitve.us-rs.si/usrs/us-odl.nsf/o/ F723CFA5D130A240C12571720028F422 (27 March 2011).
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia, Decision No. U-I-218/04-8 (13 October 2004), available at http://odlocitve.us-rs.si/usrs/us-odl.nsf/o/ 1155ED8320C7D857C125717200288EBA (27 March 2011).
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia, Decision No. Up-404/05-13 (21 June 2007), available at http://odlocitve.us-rs.si/usrs/us-odl.nsf/o/ 99D333AC9AB40944C1257314003B3B6E (27 March 2011).
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia, Decision No. U-I-380/06-11 (11 September 2008), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 91/2008 (26 September 2008).
Constitutional Court of the Republic of Slovenia, Decision No. U-I.137/10-47 (26 November 2010), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 99/2010 (7 December 2010).
Court Rules (Sodni red), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 17/95 (18 March 1995), with amendments published in Official Gazettes Nos. 35/98, 91/98, 22/2000, 113/2000, 62/2001, 88/2001, 102/2001, 22/2002, 15/2003, 75/2004, 138/2004, 74/2005, 5/2007, 82/2007, 16/2008, 93/2008, 110/2008, 117/2008, 119/2008 and 22/2010.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 107
Čurin Radovič, Suzana (2000). ‘Presentation of the Ministry of Culture’s Programme for the Protection of Cultural Rights of Ethnic Minorities in Slovenia’. Translated by Hugh Brown. Ljubljana (unpublished manuscript).
Decision on the establishment of a public institute Centro Italiano di Promozione, Cultura, Formazione e Sviluppo – Promocijsko, kulturno, izobraževalno in razvojno italijansko središče (Odlok o ustanovitvi javnega zavoda Centro Italiano di Promozione, Cultura, Formazione e Sviluppo – Promocijsko, kulturno, izobraževalno in razvojno italijansko središče), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 84/2005 (16 September 2005).
Declaration contained in a Note Verbale from the Permanent Representation of Slovenia, dated 23 March 1998, handed to the Secretary General at the time of deposit of the instrument of ratification, on 25 March 1998, available at http://conventions.coe.int/ Treaty/Commun/ListeDeclarations.asp?NT=157&CV=1&NA=&PO=999&CN=999&VL=1&CM= 9&CL=ENG (10 January 2011).
Declaration contained in a Note Verbale from the Permanent Representation of Slovenia, dated 19 September 2000, handed to the Secretary General at the time of deposit of the instrument of ratification, on 4 October 2000, available at http://conventions.coe.int/ treaty/Commun/ListeDeclarations.asp?NT=148&CM=&DF=&CL=ENG&VL=1 (10 January 2011).
Declaration contained in a Note verbale from the Permanent Representation of Slovenia, dated 26 June 2007, registered at the Secretariat General on 27 June 2007, available at http://conventions.coe.int/treaty/Commun/ListeDeclarations.asp?NT=148&CM=&DF=&CL=E NG&VL=1 (10 January 2011).
Declaration on the situation of national communities of persons belonging to nations of the former SFRY in the Republic of Slovenia (Deklaracija Republike Slovenije o položaju narodnih skupnosti pripadnikov narodov nekdanje SFRJ v Republiki Sloveniji (DePNNS)), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 7/2011 (4 February 2011).
ELDIA Report on Slovenia, prepared by Anna Kolláth, Judit Gasparics, Annamária Gróf and Livija Horvat, University of Maribor, 2010, in the context of the structured context analysis.
Enlargement Strategy Paper: Report on progress towards accession by each of the candidate countries, 2000, available at http://www.esiweb.org/enlargement/wp-content/ uploads/2009/02/ec-2000-strategy-paper.pdf (17 March 2011).
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 108
European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages,adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, on 25 June 1992; opened for signature in Strasbourg on 5 November 1992; entered into force on 1 March 1998. ETS No. 148.
Government of the Republic of Slovenia: Draft Law Amending the Law on Primary School. EVA: 2011-3311-0007; No.: 00722-2/2011/7, Ljubljana, 14 July 2011.
Government of the Republic of Slovenia: Radio-television Slovenia in accordance with the new law (Radiotelevizija Slovenije po novem zakonu), http://www.vlada.si/si/teme_in_projekti/nov_zakon_o_rtv/ (25 February 2011).
Hozjan, Bojan (2007). O dvojezičnem šolstvu na narodno mešanem območju Prekmurja, http://www.dos1-lendava.com/Dokumenti/DVOJEZICNO_VZGOJNO_IZOBRAZ_DELO.doc (1 July 2012).
Informal interview with an adviser to the Italian and Hungarian National Communities, Ljubljana, 12 May 2011.
Informal interview with Dr. Miran Komac, Institute for Ethnic Studies, Ljubljana, 22 May 2011.
Initial Periodical Report presented to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe in accordance with Article 15 of the Charter: Slovenia, Strasbourg, 18 March 2002, MIN-LANG/PR (2002) 2.
Instruction on the manner of organising public events in which foreign languages are also used (Navodilo o načinu izvajanja javnih prireditev, na katerih se uporablja tudi tuji jezik), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 93/2005 (21 October 2005).
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee: Slovenia. 21.09.1994. CCPR/C/79/Add.40. (Concluding Observations/Comments), 21 September 1994.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee: Slovenia. 25.07.2005. CCPR/CO/84/SVN. (Concluding Observations/Comments), 25 July 2005.
INV (Inštitut za narodnostna vprašanja, Institute for Ethnic Studies) (1990). Izhodiščne teze. Razprave in gradivo - Treatises and Documents 24, pp. 7–11.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 109
Kántor, Zoltán , Balázs Majtényi, Osamu Ieda, Balázs Vizi and Iván Halász, eds. 2004. The Hungarian Status Law: Nation Building and/or Minority Protection. Sapporo: The Slavic Research Center, Hokkaido University.
Kolman, Manuel: ‘Padel tudi zadnji poskus ustanovitve občine Ankaran’, Primorska.info, 20 April 2011, available at http://www.primorska.info/novice/12861/ padel_tudi_zadnji_poskus_ustanovitve_obcine_ankaran (22 April 2011).
Komac, Miran (1997). Srbska skupnost v Sloveniji: statistična slika. Razprave in gradivo – Treatises and Documents 32, pp. 73–115.
Komac, Miran (1998). Narodne manjšine v Sloveniji (elementi destrukcije ali varnosti nacionalne države) (National minorities in Slovenia (elements of destruction or security of a nation state). In: Miran Mitar and Andrej Sotlar (eds).Nacionalna varnost in medetnični konflikti v Republiki Sloveniji. Zbornik raziskovalnega projekta, pp. 125–171. Ljubljana:Visoka policijsko- varnostna šola.
Komac, Miran (2005). Položaj Srba u Sloveniji. In: Vojislav Stanovčić (ed.). Položaj i identitet srpske manjine u Jugoistočnoj i Centralnoj Evropi: zbornik radova sa naučnog skupa održanog 26.- 29. novembra 2003. godine = proceedings of the scientific conferences held from November 26 to 29, 2003, pp. 265–278. Beograd: SANU.
Komac, Miran (2007). Konstrukcija romskega političnega predstavništva. Razprave in gradivo – Treatises and Documents 53/54, pp. 6–26.
Komac, Miran and Dean Zagorac, eds. (2003). Varstvo manjšin: uvodna pojasnila in dokumenti. Ljubljana: Amnesty International Slovenije and Inštitut za narodnostna vprašanja.
Komac, Miran and Mojca Medvešek, eds. (2004). Percepcije slovenske integracijske politike: zaključno poročilo. Ljubljana: Inštitut za narodnostna vprašanja.
Komac, Miran and Romeo Varga, eds. (2007). Social inclusion of Roma: stories from Finland, Slovakia, Slovenia and Portugal. Ljubljana: Institute for Ethnic Studies; Murska Sobota: Regional Development Agency Mura.
Komac, Miran, with Jernej Zupančič and Peter Winkler (1999). Protection of ethnic communities in the Republic of Slovenia: vademecum. Ljubljana: Institute for Ethnic Studies.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 110
Koordinacija zvez in kulturnih društev konstitutivnih narodov in narodnosti razpadle SFRJ v Republiki Sloveniji (Co-ordination of unions and cultural associations of the constitutive nations and nationalities of the former SFRY in the Republic of Slovenia): Javna pobuda Albancev, Bošnjakov, Črnogorcev, Hrvatov, Makedoncev, Srbov, ki živimo v Republiki Sloveniji (Public initiative of Albanians, Bosniacs, Montenegrins, Croats, Macedonians and Serbs living in Slovenia), presented in Ljubljana, on 14 October 2003.
Law Amending the Amended Law on Primary School (Zakon o spremembah Zakona o spremembah in dopolnitvah Zakona o osnovni šoli), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 107/2010 (29 December 2010).
Law Amending the Law on Identity Card (Zakon o spremembah Zakona o osebni izkaznici), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 60/2005 (24 June 2005).
Law Amending the Law on Primary School (Zakon o spremembah in dopolnitvah Zakona o osnovni šoli), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 102/2007 (9 November 2007).
Law Amending the Law on Primary School (Zakon o spremembah in dopolnitvah Zakona o osnovni šoli (ZOsn-H)), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 87/2011 (2 November 2011).
Law Amending the Law on Primary School, Proposal (Zakon o spremembah in dopolnitvah Zakona o osnovni šoli, Predlog, EVA: 2011-3311-0007), 24 March 2011, http://www.mss.gov.si/fileadmin/mss.gov.si/pageuploads/zakonodaja/pdf/OS/Zakon_o_osn ovni_soli_24_3_11.pdf (2 April 2011).
Law Amending the Public Administration Act (Zakon o spremembah in dopolnitvah Zakona o državni upravi (ZDU-1D)), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 93/2005 (21 October 2005).
Law Guaranteeing Special Rights of Members of the Italian and Hungarian National Communities in the Field of Education (Zakon o posebnih pravicah italijanske in madžarske narodne skupnosti na področju vzgoje in izobraževanju), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 35/2001 (11 May 2001).
Law on Courts – Official Consolidated Text (Zakon o sodiščih (uradno prečiščeno besedilo) (ZS- UPB4)), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 94/2007 (16 October 2007).
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 111
Law on Designating Areas and Naming and Marking Settlements, Streets and Buildings (Zakon o določanju območij ter o imenovanju in označevanju naselij, ulic in stavb), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 25/2008 (14 March 2008).
Law on Gymnasia – Official Consolidated Text (Zakon o gimnazijah (uradno prečiščeno besedilo) (ZGim-UPB1)), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 1/2007 (5 January 2007).
Law on Identity Card – Official Consolidated Text (Zakon o osebni izkaznici (uradno prečiščeno besedilo)), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 71/2008 (14 July 2008).
Law on Identity Card (Zakon o osebni izkaznici), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 35/2011 (13 May 2011).
Law on Kindergartens – Official Consolidated Text (Zakon o vrtcih (uradno prečiščeno besedilo) (ZVrt-UPB2)), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 100/2005 (10 November 2005).
Law on Organisation and Financing of Education – Official Consolidated Text (Zakon o organizaciji in financiranju vzgoje in izobraževanja (uradno prečiščeno besedilo) (ZOFVI-UPB5)), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 16/2007 (23 February 2007).
Law on Passports – Official Consolidate Text (Zakon o potnih listinah (uradno prečiščeno besedilo) (ZPLD-1-UPB4)), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 29/2011 (18 April 2011).
Law on Personal Name (Zakon o osebnem imenu), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 20/2006 (24 February 2006).
Law on Primary School (Zakon o osnovni šoli), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 12/1996 (29 February 1996).
Law on Primary School – Official Consolidated Text (Zakon o osnovni šoli (uradno prečiščeno besedilo) (ZOsn-UPB3)), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 81/2006 (31 July 2006).
Law on Societies (Zakon o društvih), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 61/2006.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 112
Public Administration Act – Official Consolidated Text (Zakon o državni upravi (uradno prečiščeno besedilo) (ZDU-1-UPB4)), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 113/2005 (16 December 2005).
Law on Ratification of the Agreement on Guaranteeing of Special Rights of the Slovenian National Minority in the Republic of Hungary and of Hungarian National Community in the Republic of Slovenia (Zakon o ratifikaciji sporazuma o zagotavljanju posebnih pravic slovenske narodne manjšine v Republiki Madžarski in madžarske narodne skupnosti v RepublikiSloveniji), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 23/1993 (7 May 1993).
Law on State Prosecution – Official Consolidated Text (Zakon o državnem tožilstvu (uradno prečiščeno besedilo) (ZDT-UPB5)), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 94/2007 (16 October 2007).
Law on the Media – Official Consolidated Text (Zakon o medijih (uradno prečiščeno besedilo) (ZMed-UPB1)), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 110/2006 (26 October 2006).
Law on the Public Use of the Slovenian Language (Zakon o javni rabi slovenščine), Official Gazettes of the Republic of Slovenia Nos. 86/2004, 91/2008 Constitutional Court Decision U-I-380/06- 11, and 8/2010.
Law on the Radio-television Slovenia (Zakon o Radioteleviziji Slovenija), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 96/2005 (28 October 2005).
Law on the Roma Community (Zakon o romski skupnosti v Republiki Sloveniji), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 33/2007 (13 April 2007).
Law on the System of Salaries in the Public Sector/Public Sector Salary System Act – Official Consolidated Text (Zakon o sistemu plač v javnem sektorju (uradno prečiščeno besedilo) (ZSPJS-UPB13)), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 108/2009 (28 December 2009).
Melik, Vasilij (1997). Problemi v razvoju slovenske narodne identitete (do 1941). In Dušan Nećak (ed.). Avstrija. Jugoslaviaja. Slovenija. Slovenska narodna identiteta skozi čas: zbornik, Lipica, 29 . maj–1. junij 1996, pp. 25–49. Translated by Igor Grdina and Vesna Kalčič. Ljubljana: Oddelek za zgodovino Filozofske fakultete.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 113
Milanov, Timotej (2011). ‘Dvojezične osebne izkaznice le na dvojezičnih upravnih enotah’.Vestnik, 12 May, p. 8.
Milanovich, Natasha (1996). Slovenia in the New Geopolitical Context. In Francis W. Carter and Harold T. Norris (eds.). The Changing Shape of the Balkans, pp. 25–49. London: UCL Press.
Ministry of Culture of the Republic of Slovenia: Draft Law on Radio-television Slovenia (Osnutek zakona o Radioteleviziji Slovenija), no date, available at http://www.mk.gov.si/fileadmin/mk.gov.si/pageuploads/Ministrstvo/Zakonodaja/Predlogi_z akonov/Zakon_RTV_Slovenija_lekt_in_uskl_cistopis_z_lekt_uvodom_in_obrazlozitvami_FIN_ _-_CEL_ZAKON.pdf (27 March 2011).
Ministry of the Interior of the Republic of Slovenia: Draft Law on Identity Card (EVA: 2010-1711- 0001) (Predlog Zakona o osebni izkaznici (EVA: 2010-1711-0001)), no date, http://www.mnz.gov.si/fileadmin/mnz.gov.si/pageuploads/SOJ/word/Zakon_o_osebni_izkaz nici.doc (10 April 2011).
Nagy, Csongor István (2007). The moral of the Hungarian Status Law saga. Acta Juridica Hungarica 48(3), pp. 295–306.
National programme programme of measures for the Roma, by the Government of the Republic of Slovenia, in the period 2010–2015 (Nacionalni program ukrepov za Rome Vlade Republike Slovenije za obdobje 2010–2015), Ljubljana, 18 March 2010, available at http://www.uvn.gov.si/fileadmin/uvn.gov.si/pageuploads/pdfdatoteke/ Program _ukrepov.pdf (20 May 2011).
Občina Ankaran: ‘Comunità Italiana – Italijanska Narodna Skupnost’, available at http://obcina- ankaran.si/?p=328 (20 April 2011).
Opinion on Slovenia, adopted by the Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, on 12 September 2002, published on 14 March 2005, ACFC/INF/OP/I(2005)002.
Third Opinion on Slovenia, adopted by the Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, on 31 March 2011, published on 28 October March 2011, ACFC/OP/III(2011)003.
Personal interview with a governmental employee who wished to remain anonymous. Ljubljana, 12 May 2011.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 114
Personal interview with Dr.László Göncz, Hungarian MP in the National Assembly, Ljubljana, 24 May 2011.
Plut-Pregelj, Leopoldina (2000). Slovenia’s Concerns about the Proposed Yugoslav Core Curriculum in the 1980s. In Leopoldina Plut-Pregelj, Aleš Gabrič and Božo Repe (eds.). The Repluralization of Slovenia in the 1980s: New Revelations from Archival Records, pp. 58–78. The Donald W. Treadgold Papers in Russian, East European, and Central Asian Studies 24. Seattle: The Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies, University of Washington.
Programme of measures for assistance to the Roma in the Republic of Slovenia (Program ukrepov za pomoč Romom v Republiki Sloveniji), adopted by the Government of the Republic of Slovenia, at its 171st session, on 30 November 1995, available at http://www.uvn.gov.si/fileadmin/uvn.gov.si/pageuploads/pdf_datoteke/Romi_1995.pdf (30 March 2011).
Programme of Primary School (Program osnovne šole), MŠŠ, adopted in 1998 and changed in 2008, available at http://www.mss.gov.si/si/solstvo/osnovnosolsko _izobrazevanje/program_osnovne_sole/ (25 April 2011).
Report by the State Electoral Commission on the referendum on the creation of new municipalities of Ankaran and Mirna, on 8 November 2009 (državna volilna komisija: Poročilo o izidu glasovanja in o izidu referenduma o ustanovitvi občin oziroma spremembi njihovih območij, ki je bil 8. novembra 2009), available at http://www.dvk. gov.si/O2009/dokumenti/porocilo_o_izidu_referenduma.pdf (10 March 2011).
Report submitted by the Republic of Slovenia pursuant to Article 25, Paragraph 1, of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, ACFC/SR(2000)004, submitted on 29 November 2000.
Report submitted by the Republic of Slovenia pursuant to Article 25, Paragraph 1, of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, ACFC/SR/III(2010)007, submitted on 28 April 2010.
Resolution on the National Programme for Language Policy 2007–2011 (Resolucija o nacionalnem programu za jezikovno politiko 2007–2011 (ReNPJP0711)), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 43/2007 (18 May 2007).
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 115
Roter, Petra (2001). Locating the "minority problem" in Europe: a historical perspective. Journal of International Relations and Development 4(3), pp. 221–249.
Roter, Petra (2003). Language issues in the context of 'Slovenian smallness'. In: Farimah Daftary and François Grin (eds.). Nation-building, ethnicity and language politics in transition countries, pp. 211–241. Budapest: Local Government and Public Service Reform Initiative - Open Society Institute.
Roter, Petra (2008). Spreminjajoči se pomen vsebine kriterijev opredeljevanja (narodnih) manjšin. Razprave in gradivo/Treatises and Documents 56/57, pp. 34–68. Available at http://www.inv.si/DocDir/Publikacije-PDF/Razprave%20in%20gradivo/RIG%2056_57/ Roter%2056_57.pdf (15 March 2011).
Ružič, Ernest (2011). 'Po popisu ne sme biti manj Slovencev na Madžarskem'. Porabje 21(5), 3 February 2011, p. 1; available at http://www.porabje.hu/pdf/2011/2011_5.pdf (10 October 2011).
Second opinion on Slovenia,adopted by the Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, on 26 May 2005, published on 14 March 2005, ACFC/INF/OP/II(2005)005.
Second report submitted by Slovenia pursuant to Article 25, Paragraph 1 of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, received on 6 July 2004, ACFC/SR/II(2004)008.
Statistični urad Republike Slovenije (no date). Prebivalstvo po narodni pripadnosti: popisi 1961 – 2002, available at http://www.stat.si/letopis/2003/04_03/04-03-03.asp?jezik=si (23 January 2011).
Statut javnega zavoda Radiotelevizija Slovenija (Statute of the public institute of the Radio- television Slovenia), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 106/2006 (13 October 2006).
Statute of the University of Ljubljana (Statut Univerze v Ljubljani), unofficial consolidated text, prepared and published on 3 May 2011, available at http://www.uni- lj.si/o_univerzi_v_ljubljani/predpisi_statut_ul_in_pravilniki/statut_univerze_v_ljubljani.aspx (8 May 2011).
Stewart, Michael (2009). The Hungarian Status Law: A new European form of Transnational politics? Working Paper, University College London, available at
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 116
http://www.transcomm.ox.ac.uk/working%20papers/WPTC-02-09%20Stewart.pdf (10 October 2011).
Šabič, Zlatko (2002). Slovenia and the European Union: a different kind of two-level game. In Ronald H. Linden (ed.): Norms and nannies: the impact of international organizations on the Central and East European states, pp. 91–127. Lanham/Boulder/New York/Oxford: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Šuligoj, Boris (2004).‘Bolje Slovenec v Italiji kot Italijan v Sloveniji’. Delo, available at http://galeb.obala.net/news.pdf.php?id=5810 (2 May 2009).
Štamcar, Miha and Vanja Pirc (2005). ‘Izrivanje civilne družbe vodi v totalitarizem’. Mladina, 23 May, available at http://www.mladina.si/94657/slo--mediji- miha_stamcar_vanja_pirc/?utm_source=tednik%2F200521%2Fclanek%2Fslo--mediji- miha_stamcar_vanja_pirc%2F&utm_medium=web&utm_campaign=oldLink (10 October 2011).
Telephone interview with a representative of the Ministry of the Interior, 23 May 2011.
Telephone interview with Marija Mojca Maleš, Ministry of Education and Sport, Sector on Kindergartens and Primary Schools, 6 December 2011.
The Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia – consolidated text that includes the original Constitution of 23 December 1991 (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 33/1991- I) and the amendments adopted by the Constitutional Act of 14 July 1997 (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 42/1997), the Constitutional Act of 25 July 2000 (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 66/2000), the Constitutional Act of 27 February 2003 (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 24/2003), the Constitutional Acts of 15 June 2004 (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 69/2004), and the Constitutional Act of 20 June 2006 (Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 68/2006).
The Constitutional Act Amending Article 14 of the Constitution of the Republic of Slovenia (Ustavni zakon o spremembi 14. člena Ustave Republike Slovenije), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 69/2004 (24 June 2004).
The Statute of the Municipality of Hodoš (Statut občine Hodoš), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 136/2006 (22 December 2006).
The Statute of the Municipality of MoravskeToplice (Statut občine Moravske Toplice), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 11/1999 (19 February 1999).
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20
Hungarian in Slovenia | 117
The Statute of the Municipality of Šalovci (Statut občine Šalovci), Official Gazette of the Republic of Slovenia No. 38/2006 (11 April 2006).
Third Opinion on Slovenia, adopted by the Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, on 31 March 2011, published on 28 October March 2011, ACFC/OP/III(2011)003.
Ustava Socialistične republike Slovenije (Constitution of the Socialist Republic of Slovenia).Dopisnadelavskauniverza, 1974.
Varuh človekovih pravic (Slovenia’s Ombudsman) (2004). Deveto redno letno poročilo (Ninth Regular Annual Report), Ljubljana.
Varuh človekovih pravic (Slovenia’s Ombudsman) (2003). Osmo redno letno poročilo (Eighth Regular Annual Report), Ljubljana.
Žagar, Mitja (2002). Nekaj misli o politiki integracije romske skupnosti v Sloveniji. Razprave in gradivo – Treatises and Documents 41, pp. 136–171.
Žagar, Mitja (2010). Ustava SFRJ in ustavni sistem 1974: povzročitelj krize ali mehanizem za njeno razreševanje?. In: Zdenko Čepič (ed.). Slovenija - Jugoslavija, krize in reforme 1968/1988, pp. 231–256. Ljubljana: Inštitut za novejšo zgodovino.
Working Papers in European Language Diversity 20