Table of Contens

CEU eTD Collection THE In partia T HE

L

I ANGUAGE MPACTS l f ulfil Internal Advisor: C N lment ENTRAL ATIONALISM IN External Adv AN of R S D L IGHTS the OVAKIA P

B ERSPECTIVES E requirements Kata udapest, UROPEAN Submitted to

isor: P

OF rofessor Ti

E S 200

A TUDIES by P

Zol H H LÉNYI N 9 U D ungary tán forthedegree NGARIAN R U OMANIA: K bor

NIVE

OF P ÁNTOR ROG V EU ÁRADY RSITY RAM

- C M

of OMMUNITIES EMBERSHIP

Master of Arts CEU eTD Collection CEU eTD Collection gram Finall Bugár in Language advises. contributed to encouraged I A

w

c relation

Zoltán ould k ma n y , o

Attila this

ti w

like Further cal

Office l to Kántor

e me w contribution to

d

to Slovakian ork Hegyeli

g

m

to e expres more

y

(Slovakia), m

w , choose

work ould e Researcher n

, special s

t Kálmán

s

m language ofm

not

with this y

thanks have from

thanks y

topic his friend,

Petőcz of

rights. been

whom

conceptua

to and the

to

Professor

Tamá

and

comp Gizella

supported H

I I ungarian

received

also Lá s Szerecz l leted

szló

and Szabómihályi

gratefull Tibor

without

m Pék

anal invaluable In y .

stitut work Várady

y who y ti

ca

acknowledge the e

l with ,

kindl

of the

, s

patience

help uggestions m

Internationa y his Researcher y

Internal to as

co

sisted comp

mm of the

my and ents,

support lete Supervisor,

in l of

family

A bibliographic

m

the m furthermore ffairs, y y

research. Gram of research

and

Ilona

who who

ma the i

CEU eTD Collection

II II. MinorityProtection I. Lang Introd Table Ackno T a I. MinorityLanguageRight

III / III / III / II / II / II / I / I / b B.Language A

III / III / III / III / III / III / III / III / I / I / The structureof III / III / l C.M B.P A e o C.Directi B.Legislation A uction w . Language A.2.Content A.1.Theoretical

uage . The f C o . Historical ledge C.3.Legislative C.2.Otherlegislative C.1.L B.5.Legislation B.4.Legislation B.3.Legislation B.2.State B.1.Minority C.5.Evaluation C.4.In f rotection

onitoring ontents C Rig European

o ...... me n aw onthe stitutiona hts andLa t mpact nts polic rights, e ...... languageacts ofminori n fra oflanguage me thethesis onm ...... t s rightsinthe mework U ofthe y debates chanis a andnationalis aspartofminor changesrelating of useofminority onpublic onofficial onminority nion l s aConditiontotheEU-Me changeswithin inorit theCouncil nguage Policy—Theoretica ties EUontheminor and‘itsminor m ...... changesrelating ...... s inSlovakia y ...... oftheEU asaccession rights language

...... media constitutions useofnames,local education m ...... ofEurope languagesinSlovakia ...... it ...... the useofminority ...... y rightsin rights it a criterion accessionperiod y nd Ro it polic ...... u y ...... legislat se ...... Romania ofminority y’ ma ......

mb ...... na nia Be l ion Fram languagesin mes andtopographical ership ...... andSlovakia ...... fore ...... languagesinSlovakia e wo ...... E rk U-Accession Romania ...... signs ......

12 45 44 43 42 40 38 37 36 34 32

27 18

39 31 28 23 21 18 15

8 6 ii ii

8 1

8

i CEU eTD Collection

Ap Bibliography Conclusion IV.

IV /C.Compar IV /B.Roman IV /A.Slovakia pendices T

IV IV IV IV IV IV he /B.3.“Decentralization” /B.2.Education /B.1.Thelaw /A.3.ThePátria /A.2.Education /A.1.Modificat Sit uation ...... ia ison o ...... f Minorit onthestatusof ...... ion ...... andthe‘textbook- issue of thestate y LanguageRightsA ...... national languageact is sues’ mino ...... isunderreconsideration rities fter E ...... U-Accession ......

......

59 56 55 54 52 50

78 70 64 50

61 55 50 iii CEU eTD Collection CEU eTD Collection d_pra 2 International Poli 1 though onl of language the use Slovak underpin structure of as incorporated com bottle, the higher internat protection I

http: n The the

the t

y the

collapse r of mi ‘institut //www.spectator.sk/a

gmatic.html

one o term

mino

European tm the atthe d during After In or National ional newly u

thisidea,

en for at

rights

‘re- c an contrast state beca rity

t t

ion the

of i tim

internationalizing’

the agree the the

o old

to the (acc condition

tics ofDiversity established

n co

me language ver and

of

Council e U minori

‘respect end

minor mm ofaccession wine nineties aswell. essed

ments nion.

y to

penalties’ a li

mo

of unis mi rticles/view/35022/10/culture_minister_sa significant this on28April2009).

t it

in t y me the

—as

y

plans and N

b the m,

for

protection than

a y stage conditions otwithstanding nt

(O protection,

Cold

all

new although is

u and recom

a w

xford

se minori abolished

to used

the part hich the

before

of am War protection factor bottle.

Universit

decades

citizens b me of minorit

end y creates in

t

scholars y the Wi the ndat minor

protection

the

and

enlarge the in ll in

politica

At

that

EU

ions y

Ky y

accession

before.

in Europe. Press,2007),

State tension 1999,

of it

languages—without in mlick that

y

all

in still

created

national

men regarding rights 1993

l Slovakia

aspects Language a s

condition

ti

moreover debate

1 ee me in Europe t, between

period.

med

five Multicultura were

The

PartI,

the a the minor ys

of more minorit _l to

whether

the

ye

ang

had number European re-internationa Copenhagen Act

every

3-60. besatisfactor for

the The ar it iti

ua state

s

2 es‘—in to or

EU — ge would

l

majorit y

after an da following

Odysseys _a

face which protection it

less

y language y mem ct_amendment_is_natural_ of

is

com life,

U

the

a

a accept restrict the y nion s

bership. new uccessful

w new — European

me and y.

liz would

EU-accession ould

N thesis

case

ed nt avigating

also issue

was ed challeng wine the

from and the reinforce

studies

reintroduce and

A minor referred proved noticeabl

is

incentive

in s m m

a

Council the

the not

inorit inorit signed e an result

iti

after

side will

New

old the the the es,

its an to y y y 1

CEU eTD Collection 2,500,000. Source: (0.3 The 350,000 Germans, 89,920 5 4 to theProcess,” 2004; Transfe 2008) EU,” in Minority Monitors: Gabriel Normative Criterion 3 countries, choosing however, the me According to EU an laws restricting minor minor have accession further The

Such In

Sl

mb this

ongoing

2002 exa ovakia,” accession S %) EUaccession

i

lovakia Othon a n

it it 209-232; studies ership, Roma r

T

N. role

y y To This mple and develop and t current Issues

Into

he o census

EU

P

protection protection

Overstret

onl

the Tog oles,

other

to

is

Protection reveal

Anastasakis

500,000

Enlarg 59,764 JEMIE to in

(1.7%), Pol

(Total debate

are

and examp SouthEastEuropean the y the of Cand genbu i

n

events this recorded Frank ic this Moravians,

the

minori men e.g.:

M Europe debate process y, the national European

largest islesseffective ch

ement

idate the ” RG

population

1/2003 Germans rg (or 3 44,620 context?

Hungarians

EUI

le Gwendol t, h or has of no Hungarian on

Schim

W yp

(Budap

and are,

po

a

up

Effective 1,431,807 Countries Minorit (JE t raises

isanexampleof

Cond y working orld Director oth longer by kind the

;

been ssible rightsorlanguage

to national Czechs Dimi Bulg Wo

MIE) and melfennig however,

esis

(0.3%). 10% U exploring

y est: internat itionality in

jciech n

The

ies of nion.

arians, tar

the since

Sasse,

ethnic

2005 1/2003; Condit

inconsistencies

exists

papers S

O

are Hungari of of

the regression (0.8%), comm in Bechev, tudies Progr

S

after thesis

minorit question Cen I/ Sadurski, the

the Other y

:

LG

the ional

of

accession,

To and “EU etc.) and effect 5,401,000): less ionality

tral aconditionalprocess, 2005/16 as W minori population). K M I the un

ans

EU-accession. , 24,201 yr ider

following:

w

Minori

”EU

argues Ulrich estimates inorities.

Cond 2004); the (0.2%). iti and studied ia hat

y level

(6.6%),

impa

ki

“Minorit

,” es am, can of Europe usage group,

as

Condit

candidat ties ;

Eastern Topidi, itionality

in extent

Ru t Gwendoly

living

y

European

mino and

Sedelmeier,

Ja The concerning to Protection

Minority about that be cts thenians Other

mes In 535,140 also pu by

”,

ionality withoutan

y why

detected

that 2001

furthermor

t

R

of “The Fir rity eds.

Europe,” there

Protection or

scholars.

omania the es in Hughes

and

estimates these

live

n stl mino

St

in

Pro

as

(0.4%),

Marc Slovakia becam there

Sasse, census Roma

‘conditionali R in condition

Limits Minority y in

udies Centre,

what are oma “Governanc

, the

tection the

—(Total in

minori

S

the rity regarding t Journal

and outh yp

Wel

in y

cases

CEECs,” (2.5%), “Minority

the

e Copenhagen are

population e 10,814 recorded of put con

This es

way

H

Central its

ler

me Gwendoly

condition East

and R EU

ungarian

and t

countries. of the ights:

countries y

sequences.

popu and wa size of mb s

t where

e y’ paper April2003.

Cond 61,098 protection

the Europe: Ukrainians

‘conditiona

does

European nu i

s Romania. b minorit

Journal Europe ers, 520,528 Rights Denika

s used lation

y

Translating

mber EU: and at more

itionality n Condit

regression wi

the between Ukrainians the after comm Sasse, condition

5

T Brin int

in

territoria where, and

of shes he and Blacklock on y

There

Hungari European Public (0.2%), The effective

states

2005:

ionality

his meaning. the protection W R ging

Ethnopo

:

lit EU the I Accession

“Moni oma uni ay

the M n

to y

1,800,000

thesis inorit

reasons ,’

Enlar both

Com Forward

21,711,000): t

/ instead Copenhagen

isalread

Po accession.

contribute

y, can ans 4 l regarding regarding : o at Ruthenians

toring (Palgrav thers but po licy

litics EU

in y mitment

between gement:

before

Union (9.7%),

cases, adopt sition

R

takes

to

after both

11:4, post ights Ru and (like

,

and for the t ed. of he le e, y 2

CEU eTD Collection Brubak Europe,” 7 Majorities, L 6 In —which for achieve state, building. argued the rights and minor broader thesis enlarge minor German Hungarians existence ‘language countries give

Tibor R

oge

this

three survival minor

logical

rs

it it er Várad provide it thus

y men y The A

me context,

(Cambridg

by context Brubaker,

in - is

7 fter

con and cases w existing protection

in of

it

nt

aw Nat also rights

This y

t y Brubaker,

the have

of protection

this

different reason stitut

and

ar , of

comm andEthnicity ionalism introducing

Hungarian

gues the the

i a howeverthe

kind these

mportan protection context ould

“National

e:

the

only permanent e

actors—these of

Cambridge possibilit language

that

the un for ele

H

bedifficult. the of

dialects, Reframed.

iti

pla national ungarian the

one

ments,

play of language

nation- es t

are

:

ye Roma

Reflectionsofthe relevanc M

also to

the minori argue minorit

inorities, y er rs

of Universit

and

be thesisitself put

bargain s

for

w

and

are yo two building,

determ

of minori Na minori

comm actors

hich culture,

e the population’ that nd the

clai t

tionhood

y the of y a

Nationali

the core y

large h the case language language.

ms.

‘reproduction’ has

Press, between istory this ties uni

political ines t are y

parties scope 6 focusesmore

w

however, Yugoslav

t

political

com

of

ele y— form

and group hich

the 1996)55-59. as and Secondly zing the

language

men

as an

mu

the

national well different s

of er rights

arena

is ize States, Thirdl po d

of w

nit

such ts—such

Case,” a the this

nat before

mat and ssibilit ho

spect migh

the ies

as , of

ional

and

basic

ter speak

the is

w and

y, onthe rights

cultural would

minor a

also H the

actors. ork,

t Human RightsQuarterly

by

is

only

m

presenting

ies minor

be ungarian anal its quest E

y the providing

interest xternal as

onl

fight

in not perm endeavor of language it legislative since

ys

ion

be one y,

the most

it contrast y dimensions the Brubaker is

to

y

the the

National

in

anentl more

for

of com

of men process aspect minori

H minority

proper the

impor the

state- home

ungarian all

a

language knowledge mu

for

tion

national with actual y New details.

complex the

Homelands in

t nit changing languages, tant

y

of

a state

rights. as anal

that of

his 19(1997) y minori Europe

that in

kind

a

well. structure

and since minor

the

y

theor Slovakia minori larger the and

sis rights In of

due of ,

can

of

ties

“Minorities,

i struggles.

European

ed. the notion n language

iti kin- of Scholars 8-54. y English, whereas

the

nation-

t es

clai

to

assure

set y. of Rogers of home is other state

New

in

and

the the the

ms As

an of of

3 a

CEU eTD Collection color larger and would of provided of balancing behind or which conditions internat and whereas Hungarian different men enlarge comp and Alliance Roman the

po more

tioned finall minorit Romani orthesupporting sitive let

bleachers proces a

award ia, men It ional the s ed

on loose

of power with a

y is

individual

‘processofbargaining’.

that for with

result minori rights m

t

y H the the

best a.

s

inorit process organizations, onl ungarians

perceive

minor the

does

once

The

is other kin-state, they a relations

y

to of

in t

maxi forth the y y the

not ism the it take referee order favor getting s com

hare y field and

slogansmight m

Hungarian

mu

the protection,

pla different change, in with inim

mu

a

affect

m H

to its com

ye Roman the there

practical same ungar nit

such closer

represents of um assure r,

the

condition individualist

y munitarian

nam

the

,

each

however

are

of

interest politica

w y. a European ia

Coalition

s and

to rights

ho el the

the

standing (RM

the

changein exa

y However, other: the

enjoy

finall

standards with first

above

mple s l CoE

of

DSZ),

ys listed the

minor processes principles, ic

tem the

y standards

the and

Part

O the

principle

position

the

or the in ment

n

tim comm

in

it

the

in

actuall

European

y

the y the

s order foremost national

to net these upport ,

e,

this

(M ioned

then two

might the

whichinfluence one

OSCE, un stands

which

of KP) differentl

and

y

to

case standards. it minori

nation

to the side y izing has of ‘reproduction’;

clai

expose

change Union.

as the in

the

for the emphasiz pla w

this

a might of

ms t Slovakia

ho

home

y states European whole, home

y the ye

kin-state

). the com for

list

are rs, po how

Whereas The actual il

This

sition,

tennis basic thewhole

y

states,

mun their should Slovakia e states. actuall

and

influenced

the that EU and

further

it from minorit ma

Union

tacti

argue y human

being

compounded court

as na

there on

y in

(as be the The

mel

a

setting c, and

game. the the

frame

imm

claim

result the

for y

and their there D more

rights,

is y

s

the standards, other emo Romani

upporters side

Slovakia majorit need the ed

s

further

up

of shirts’ above of

is iat strict, crati

to

need

line,

side

and

and the el

the the the for be a, y y 4 c

CEU eTD Collection Slovakia. Hungarians, concern influenced Accordingl these institutions publicat schools foundations Status takes thesis, onl however or less dem minor for seem

less

y

the ands tothe success; ed

part it ho

but y The The

rem Law, ions,

con

play

wever

of only or for law,

in strictrules for y

b ained

sistent,

introduction take

mat er y which the

or award the

the Hungary language

the

with and s; the the

a in

ch cannot

research thesis

to develop on

separate

on

fourth other

sake

Motherland

at provide the of on

the

scholarships the

the andnotforthe least

’s

this

intention focuses rights,

the of floor provide

words

attitude of men field; play one

is comple

EU-region as

the thesis mone other

t er to in far side

both of

w and changing , on

Fund,

order providing by s language

has hat as tar

minor how

teness

might the

for the the

finall the the y once

is fairpla changed

contributions

the

home or

RMD the how the pre-enlarge it students, minority H

it

y y attitud

have from ungarian

s

represent

ome the language s rights movem Romani hould

H

y states’ SZ this

. ungarian

also,

min seemed ti e governmen

mes

condition has

of

factor as and be en im men

a

according

the for approach, me

the

education. t

and um it changed ment

for

of

mb t teachers, schools, kin-state

in

is

Academ

interest process

effected of

language Slovakia

autonom

ers

ioned tal the the of

the

the and

to

whose of

its task following:

standards—

y for is There of the goes

that

European and

on tactic, the then y concerned

protection seemed of

the .

children of internal

the

stance

bey the

Sciences,

The different is s minori the from upport

Hungarian

at on on

language

to

The

two Union. and M d

ha ti

the affairs,

visiting

oppo

and in mes the t be KP s y

paid

been Romani

for

one ‘EU home com

internationa

stable and

scope set

sition, perpetual

calling

The

state

but rights hand

attent

minori mu minor the

actuall referee’

private

states.

of too—

a

nit

more ma rules

with

also

and ion

the the for ies it of l t in y y y y 5 l

CEU eTD Collection them onnationallevel, knowledg right Minorities 9 8 com accession Slovakia concentrat condition a language introduces context creates the minor identit s Eastern for anal narrowed background. See

ym

The balanced

choosing connection

bo m y mu to

ze The st UN it ore ies

li the enjoy y After The The

nit

c of e Europe the

infootnoteno.3.

l and andthe group

of Declaration issue ists

ies of

onl e secondpillar role

European period

and ructure the structure their second conditiona on

their

the s these a y Rom in

etting

s,

First

wide

s the to

between

detailed the ‘minori

language

traditions, the on and states culture, EUmonitoring

language

ania,

(third ofthe t case

rights

chapter

range

he on the

mem up develop the

enlargem s of right pecial lit

the

on

t

the ofthis and

studies

other. the y to evaluation

y

language

content thesis of langua

bership out chapter)

is

t of R allow protection the

o establishand rights,

theoretic

thesis presents rights ights

looks men a

attent the of

ent, central ge

theoretical one

These and

them

the

t

sy

EU of and minori of period

at

is ion of policies the

of

and hand, of ste Persons

on long

al

the the language culture the b adequate

minorit

ele

two, y framework is European m both

language and ties mem

main

focusing in their effects

following: paid European (fourth men

list and chapter.

are

theenlarge Belongin practical and of however, the ber

tain

y

of

t

opportunities

their to enti

language i

of

comm rights mpacts

e t nationalism

minor and

states’

the stablish po heir chapter).

tled policies

on

the own,

of g

wer background.

ownassociations,etc.

outcom

Copenhagen framework, The to general

to

un migh ethnic it will the

men

to

policies. National validate: y

of iti on men rights

right to first rights

es,

enforcemen are EU,’ t

t

be The

process. learn es the

result should t groups.

minorit

in to

and chapter

of

defined are 9

acknowled cornerstones

or

participate

contrast past

language is

t

the the

The heir

As the criterion.

Ethnic,

functioning in the

one also

y

third

the

five minority EU’ mo a

research A

protection. t

provides

fact

zero s of since is

ther

gment

be research Re to i

a s

n

y exa and

the

rights

ea ligious consequence that decisions

the approach

scrutinized, tongue, The

s rs for

um

mined.

this

t condition thus basic heir of fourth

studies, in the

in chapter

8

game. the

and constructing is of

Central

e

research the to

The focuses xistence, which theoretica

put

claims

This

mino encoura minorit chapters L

towards case ing

reason

which

and in

in

of gives Thus affe

uistic

part

rity

and

the the

on the its

ge of of is ct it y 6 l

CEU eTD Collection need reco conditiona studies organizat published me other EU laws of chapters Slovakia

the mb

Regular mm fordeveloping reports concerning

ership nineties

The will enda

is ions, and

lit

to

to

end

y comp help Reports, tions is

demonstr minori two

to moni anal

minor regarding of

the

to

to leted in

y acom the

tor

ju ze

t present dis but the y stif it associations, ate

d, b thesis y

solve

polic minor y as case y the

mo

ho

the

the minorit a

w ti n

introduction

result these me. returns EUstandard y CoE

of

it the role

y at

Roman

the y results The

protection or NG

researchinstitut discrepancies of of

to

state

protection. their

the presentation

ia the

Os as of rests

level, regardingm European j

ustif later

the European —

well. primar

informa conditional y

detailed

in

and this The

the ions, of

In Union

il

to

kind the y accession tion inorit context.

the andmedi

highlight on thesis handicaps,

develop forth it

— of and y y purchased

protection. since

proceeded moni

the chapter, phase is The ends a.

men to

no toring. long- the

what outcomes ts

more

b thesis

and when from

from y primar term

extent

T

the mak EU-reports

he

the benefits effects the internation

il of

adoption ing aim y

beginning there based

period the

of

of some

from

case

is

the are of

on its of

al 7 a

CEU eTD Collection (Budap building, 11 Education], KonstantinUniverity helyzete 10 such argue, language explanat on minor within safeguarding having in polic and nationalism minor what I

. I Wi

t

conflict L

the is I ll

/ y

a

as I /A.1.Theoretical nominated

is iti it A est: language imposed thesenotions Ky

n

one y Toda As

a es its g E . Languagerights,asparto ion meant an

mlick OpenSociety

rights. thnicity u of szlovákiai

based the with litera

hand, a

y effective that

g the a the

e

research a as and

by

by

. Thesetwoissues each is often ture

and

R

Further, on given ‘linguistic general the role recognize

‘language François the i felsőoktatá

andconcepts. g

Language general I

and other h

pre nstitute,

majorit of

linguistic t seen is minorit s debates

servation

the arts.

there consensus

focused universal’ a

Grin, as

inNitra-

n language

2003)11. sban human as

state

rights’ 1 Politics d y a 1

—r y

is result “Assessing

necessary L ” On

comm

—la protection a

a elate, language.

[ on of Ny by

The

n need

rights.

the

in for

f m

g has itr rights e.g. of language minorit nguage rights

u T a.

in un Si

other ransit

a the in clarific

to tuation Anna to the it been

g

s ority rights

y ome

e The reveal

preserve as

game

; Po

ion

1 y This and

hand P 0

Sándor

part litics

ation, cultures o or

rights reached of sen documents Countr l

i of the

chapter

in that the

c scholars claim of of se

y and the

balance

other — Diversit is ies minorit instead overlap, connection Hunga

Ildikó of historic depends , embedded T that

ed eds.

is h

b dealing words, rian the argue e

y

between designated

y y Vančoné

o it Farimah of interconne i

m n r rights.

La is Transition e

majorit general achievem

inorit — on between t

ng

i not ho in with however c

ua

the

a Kremmer, Daftra

the w

a ge y l

This

group

y

sufficient

general to F

K minor minori

—

ct, pre i minorit Countries,” n

ents

r ym y language expo

strengthening and

a

derives servation the

and this m li

s and of “ it ck

t A

e se y Slovak y ye Fran introduction

y w magyar

a

as

the protection, protection,

to t

priorit the language

are o

sump and i

from çois n policies

r culture,

protect

Nat k of issues Higher

often

nyelv G Grin,

tion y

ion-

the the rin — or 8

CEU eTD Collection L erroneous, ar 14 Fundamental?,” Lingu Approaching 13 http: Society 12 that and b human prejudices; protection), collec question condition language dispense however, rights. Out minor was De Fern an y gues Xabier

gu the r minor l h Human //www.eumap.or

Varennes

ingui it elig of preceded is istic the ag and

tive it

that is

Institute,

end e y rights The or this

ion or

R Arzoz

De

rights

sti The ity not whether

throughthe

bu in Human individualist

ights,” there rights

the her

r c rights. of

Varennes, t w

Lingui

ight following logic

failed the

2001 i it and

the ndiv

hereas

Osgoode

protection languag the

claims

predom “g by 2001) leads div

s belong to

are

JEMIE

ene are debate,

Righ main stic

; Kontra, iduals

form rel

g/journal/f ersi a Cold

w m

by

ral

igious theoretic ould dissenting to based inorit 5

“A the that The ts Human HallL ; ty. anal e i

inant

ic

and the a a 6/2007,2.4-14. assimi

task pa

Guide War. spect,

(New

s a

individual d

there

so Phi (indirect These — theregi

ccess istorted follow

concept rt y

Fernand collective di ys end eatur on

aw Journal

under

rights it of llipson, S lation Righ ffer of majorit es al

t

are t York: The w

o theRights

moves he

oflanguage es/2004/minority this of opinions t ences righ debate, the

o hich ts

acknowledg i some that

mage

me certa

De

or protection), the

cer (Budap (and

reasons

of

aspect, ts thesis minority y Walter

kutnabb-

ofhum

Varenn , , 4/1987,25.

equation indicated

tain

aspect, language

back and WW a problems in c human of of

re and s

ofMinori est: o

too. the

ondit

the

bene to

respec

bas es,

language developed

de behind rights

Kangas one

II,

there

ement an C

relationship

1 reveal

rights _e between

4 ed “The

EU

developed

Gruy

ions fi authors proved rights.DeVarennesargues rights wi and

and duc

ts, rights

Fortunatel step t

th on ties and

P protection and and andVárad

are

— ation/edminlang R te

ress, this

or .

the still it

ight all

r,

tol

no l rights) Thus

and

langua

cannot accep still by protection

recogn to

t

form

1995);

hu o erance shift

between and of 1999); La t indicates

o onger p

man be

the disad

stop Education b

the ng some y the y ge y

tance ineffective

eds.,

are scholars or an ua

isju it

it United

rights m, L escape

S ion the rights

vantage

ge

of eslie

kutnabb- b law is change evaluation ermiss

organic

(acc both y ,”

minori

ho of

Language, aRightandResource: stified. debate human

after o

not

CO

the League approa f

and and wever,

Green, t essed and

human Nations he 13

historical

LPI ible or

the

Kangas general M

human

t po in

hem s in t

WW

part y human hare ch inorit Papers neither 27April2009) among litics.” . dif

12

attitud

task protecting

rights-skeptics

of “Are

it t onthefollowing: d ferenc

of o

be

ivers

within of

y

can and person languag II the

this

cause La of 4(Budap assumption rights

I stereot Nations

n

general e La scholars, individual

ng neglected ity

es,

Phi be “The this are EU

ng ua assumption, .

the

lippson, e

ua concluded To such ge m of is in

complex,

yp rights,

ge minority thesis

Nature inorit ,”

est:

a

not general t deny human

es ll hei (direct

— (2004):

R is Open as o

ights

that only r

that and

and f eds, and the the ies

to of 9

CEU eTD Collection April 2009 19 Opinions, April6 18 17 16 Press, 1995) 15 done rights proble politic T secession. collec citiz believe, and fact if These that specific “at approach com the protection Várad K yr

Várad S Antonio group categor

ums ym ol, thesedifferences

that ens’, mu “ do by one

licka tive

al ms s authors,

y Åland y

In This i keptics nis

1997,40.

not theSlovakian t

rights”.

1997,

ti that ) interests differentiated

at

up

Cassese,

2007,32. occur has 19 me

me ht 321-339. m contrast, notion of y

thebeginning

tp://www.jakabff necessaril

in ofthosehaving

finall disappoint aning

There collective islands) minori 31

to the

th Tibor among cannot , 1935,

16 ;

when

face and

Self-determination

migh are first y Várady

the Várad are

those t occurred, Permanent y

are

the Fascicule y helps

andRoman placed the

others, be rights, t

rights

steps ment cover

cases rights special treated threaten

y,

fact

ofthe ignored,

mistrust y also who

.r

“ to theright o/ma

A

were

above

No.64

are

not believe that, resulted C each where dissipate

the kollektív conceivabl agree

ourt equall argue nineties—at treatm g

y

state granted to of

ia internation

a is ho

in taken . “Minority rk of other.

politi that

Peoples—A men fed

isebbse ofself-deter

by wever,

the that some

Int

jogok ent y, against

sovereignt in

these ernational

using

thisleads

tion by of

mutua 18 y

towards

cal

to the

of s

g/index.php?action=cimek&lapid=4&

endanger uch areas, kérdéséről” mutua

only If Schoo least elite. should

m — al

the

liberal minorit

t inorit collec equalit

Legal

somet l comm

the

an J trust fact one y,

min ona us l

ls inAlbania,” collective todiscri accepting

term

tice, trust,

ies, not

territori atmosphere Reappraisal tive

principle

ies im of ation. y that

the uni between [About theoretical

does Series es be

the

since g

t run

these rights y principle roup-sensitive

minori

alread

mina exaggerated 1

seemed al 5

parties.

rights

the not the A./B.

counter

17-20. equality of integrit

fears (Cambridge: minor

tion

and collective y ties equalit principle con that level:

J paranoid

are

udgement of in

to

The sider were all migh

it

y

to

practice. ‘equal w return simpl y in

y K either,

of

hen

rights, kinds

and argum rights], ju

can

law

ym natural t also cikk=m960304.html Cambridge of states, stice

—

be Orders y

li

to the majorit

fears, be rights positive,

and unavoidable.

ck how

excluded ju of ents

and (

the accessed realized and

a stified.

collapse and

differences, arguesthat and collect equality

but b it collectiv of

for y University y

that

Advisory is

lead

group- (South

stating

g where

equal often

on roup from

ivit only

The

the

” 10 in . of 30 to 1 y e 7

CEU eTD Collection Post-Communist Applicat 21 20 solution on internat granted defined proble The realiza despite rights Instead argues generall histor internat The declarat not seems Várad

Geor

a impos be i major [

‘on

t notion

] ver y,

case-by

h g m, are tion y

that nte

e This

ional ional

that

1995,42-53. ions the Brunner, of y ofminori

that b y the rights, r sibl ity

y rpreted a ight nevertheless,

taken accepted;

canhappen

a

the , concept

fact of

the

e,

group and above field;’ general concerning

is norms -

law

case us

what minor group

form

w

“The internationa

cannot ing into that in h

t and s every y

y

th

debate basis, rights

as proble

the er

and

most Concept ma of approach, group is consideration, rights ion

only

group internat

none

ca

o yb

b be cannot in group minor ff it se

y

icia ingl

e group ies c probably

can SajóAndrás

ms is

granting

within

rights

perfectl m t l

of there he

of l is not ight com e ci might

an demandi ional it Group

language

be

b concrete rights, about be y the

efore

tizen c rights

ye

protection mu are occur is agroup.Várady

grounded

y

forgotten,

the t it

group internat bealsodecided

politics, Rights

no nit

(L

decided ruled mention not to will

an usehiso

collective a ondon: y

can o

need entitl in s win, . f

s “

granted;

rights. i a

never n indicated, practice,

U ional

out,

less also given

acknowledge the ed rather

furthermor ntil

Kluwer em but either, that for

pr Filed

than

ents

21

it

happen

onl

r hermothert charters, the di only incip

the coun

the the

If arguesthat creates mension

onthis L indirectl

without y

of equal

and

should

mom the aw

general

le is try

right be on ver Protection e

Int

“equa

that

content

might ambiva

san ity the

the y granted or en ern conventions, basis.

problem

, bu

is y,

notion be granting of

cti t grant

the ational,

theoretic notion ongue. S l accept

granted the

fie and t more

these r

scrutinized. of not ights

lent of s notion

M on ‘group’, group the

1995.)298. of on the

be inorities,”

ance

both rights itself

for it

and the

han no ince t co al

for

‘minorit in a word

in

as recom llec equa

level,

rights

case-b

at the same

individuals, a in

sensitive

is his i s cannot

the tiv

uch direct

thing If

all. in l

remains the

overworked near e c

me

onl

s pract y

and W iti

holder to righ

y- ’ basis, once

est

. zens”

ndat 20

creation The

case

y is

minor way

be

future. ern

definite

t

language

of still

in ical

defined ions denied,

will

R but . author

as of can

basis. th

ights?

iti ly both O

e

not

the the

es.

b 11

its ne be or of l It y y

CEU eTD Collection States,” focuses minority original, 27 Alan 26 25 (Budap building, 24 23 Integration 22 codif paid languages. ‘language alread people’s com over preservation, these instrum histories, me com that functions Grin L S Oliveras Fran Ruth ue eslie mb

Pa mu mu — language

y

Wright, &K I /A.2.Content cios y Europe.” est: mult ers

language both

tten Green, Mercator R on

nic nit Green, Consequentl

ent

groups traditional clai E ubio-Marín,

OpenSociety linguistic

,”

Ja

thnicity ym andWi Grin the y of

of reproducing ative 27

iple (Frankfu

né rights’ ; for by me 23 licka “

“Are

a C languages This

third

dis

even

with and the

ommunity Wor Grin, d, reinforcing is 2 com minor reach functions 4

rights(the tinguishes ll Ky 2003,8-12.

and

L and

the a

in Wi

cate

latter dual

rt:

king and

„ an in if mu

The y marker

Ex

state’s M mlick Language ll

K I of

gu

it isnotplausible.

h

gor s nstitute,

this languages ploring Papers istoricall K ym this peakers y

nit ulti

ag cultural and role languagerights : culture,

ymli

y

is

and

three e a, view a y . lingual li

as

R

population, yi

, group

(Oxford:Universit examp In ck Communication. an

com

context cka, of ights

of and el

2003)11.

well,

the

2/2001. 4-8. a, “The majorit

y Politics ty

ds

instrum

language

of

identit Matters

pe

identit mu that based and

“Assessing

Fundamental

advancing Competing

the loy rights s no

le

state

Main of nic as

ofSlovakia

Wright, al

refer and y gain

former in legal language

langua y 25 ativ y the ti ental LT

,

comm

; es T

languages

Concepts

serve which and and a ransit

D,

The

e s

the

in practice and tatus: onl Rat y cultural

ge

2000) ?” Press,2003) function, role,

2

politica

2 language serves

are com , Role un Po Osgoode

ion ionales,” y

as also are solidarit e.g.

litics a)

ities is will

in to

both 18-28(Chapter

well Countr mun

ba d of

Official

iffer Ir also

the to two

simpl l inheritanc L sicall

other particular ish,

of provehowimport

anguage

and

Hall and ica mora

and in as invest ent

rights Recognition 52-57. y Diversit

ies

have functions,

.

Wel Language

tive others, y

langua y

from La ,

by Ky

values

a

institut eds. l a sh);

valued

w and

s in explains ml tim the tool rights efficienc ym y

e Jo 1).

the

ge

Nations

Farimah

language i

ic c)

and n urnal, distinguish e

s legal bo

internat ; ka

ional official e.g. of Rights

Transition

to M b) and as

li

to as inorit L

clai a c L 4

com

ing they why State

categori

ing y,

affirming /1987, 25.658-

function. Daftra concrete

u ant

resources

a and clai ms se

uistic langua

y uistic are ional

mu or

isthis

tool Building L s are

Countries,”

their ms, for uch Pol two an

y nica

established small

R ge/s M gu

es. and

itical concerned

ights com the

inorit

significanc ag for major and expression identities dualrole.) language, te Green 26

).

on es Fran

and

adoption

660.

The mu

among A

Theory in groups

y

achieving

(spoken being

language i s

cios (countr n European

European nit

roles

Várad

ECRML Nat argues

in y

,

with Grin, —

and ion- e

eds.

but the

all y 12 an

of of of or b to is ’s y y

CEU eTD Collection (1960). (1992); 34 of (media, 33 32 maintenance minority 31 30 territor of group languages 29 28 reco auspices it Convention choose on the unamb on Minority languages’ standards docum agree E.g.: FCNM—adopted ECRML— See

names,surnames, The The establishes Article that

State the individual mm m

ments

numerically

relevant ial languages”

Declar Preamble

S iguousl ents. ore printed Universal

tate” The Moreover, from one enda

languages oftheCouncil

1. tha Languages.

inChapter parties and anddevelopment 29

adopted 2

Definitions:

ation t

8 for the

Furthermor

tions

are as hand

language and The Articles media, a

a

y

lists vs.

states—among

list the

more ontheR Declaration smaller on (i) in1995,andwhich

localsign

(these

in1992,andwhich by

of

most or collective are

I

t there the the raditiona Protection holder the of etc.), I

internation I of Europe, 3

resolutions andIV

defined. 0

general e

rights

“For

than

language Reflect cultural FCNM ofEurope.

ights Charter the

impor rights Article obligations are o andtopographic

of on

f Europe'sculturalweal “terri t lly

ofPersons . he

the others—that

other some

Thelangua debate, will the

Cul

used

framework. (relating tant rest ing

of National

10—use

purposes al role tory are

adopts tural adopted came rights enu

of be came and

w of on 3 internat internation 3

ithin

i

t

of

n merat he work belonging

since w Diversit u

covered the in

use

European which suall hich in

ge

in

S

languages; “ of

al to force a o the tate’s

[c

s

private

sign, to force f above by of

of g

] minor ed ional

Minorities iven th it as o y a Both

i

y m ns the re

is dual the

mmigrants

grants

rights—is

popula inority Article12,13and toNational al (2001); ider

b

a in1998.

guaranteed terri

Cha

th andtradit in and

y

regional in1998.

treaties, introduced it instrumen

United ‘a legal

of

ing its y danger 3 role rter:

tory

1

public,

tion;

la groups—b these langua neither

on legislation). Convent tha 3

2

are

of

carte document,

also a)

or of t orEthn the Nations and the

a

outsideofthe the which

of

both ions…” ges

documen “ minority

Sta ts language

regional

debates by (ii other

European

of refers to ion

eventual ) p s focusing te

14—useineducation. ) rotection yste are: oral

y ic,

d the

by against

ifferent are constitutions, defining (U Rel

side nationa m’ Article and m,

language which

In N),

ts or

mostl it igious language

, extinction,

scopeof

and

only

written

addition

were

is of meaning minori 3 Charter from Discrimination it on 4

ls w 9—freedom the the

does

and

y formul

‘regional

language

of orth places

i is

the legall

mposes

prepared

ty his form;

Council that t Ling used”

he

not

official

torical languages contribu rights, however, the mention for

bills, C the State ates

y uistic

Article harter. its

take

and

Regional

non binding

Framework

of or

obligations rights, in

States

l of w regional under

anguage European

emph

Minori tes

expression minor ho

the Education bilatera

sides ” ing

Europe 11—use

f

t means orm “non- o

asis like that

can the

ties the

it 13 or (s) or in

a y l

CEU eTD Collection re activities; topographic 40 39 38 37 L (1996), 36 222 (2007) on 35 Chapter electora nam authoriti categor categor and in ECRML—are universal inconsiderate and the of more Com (CoE), De Arzor E.g.: und gistration E.g.:

E.g.:

These concrete educational all m

Varennes es, Recommendation the contribution, mission

Guidelinesonthe

in are

PA these 2007,16. Oslo 3 Hagu

y y 5 The

l

IIIb s

Chapter es; are: 40 second

use

urna

instrum onlangua ofminori of the enforceable Recommendation processes al —more

Recommendation

e

terms, i public in language legall 2001,8-27and28- er ndications; public

private y

and ; Recommendation mes Organization

comp

the collect the on

the cultural II). ents

t ge

y- context

or y

and ECRML especiall

minor

National education; org ont use

education use

binding leting

and public

u less

These are ed

by se

pub rights anization; anduse

he topographical of

problems ofMinority of

in

1623 ities of very Effective an lic corresponds political

the reg

minority

one

minor

y

private

y

u are

s disp

i for

and 44.

Minorities ardin

ubstantial rega

se

ment n re casestudiesonRoman (2003) kind that

have deficient. use

guide

all la

of of

rding gional Securit it non-binding ys g Participationof

economic

La

ioned

y of m

langua legall the in of activi ;

minori rights

on

inority use languages

ng

b

i j courts orminority the l the

designations; to inguistic udicial the l n transborder y ua

37 y in y

3

ge y ties. De

8 the ges in

education

advances

rights (

to private t ECRML,

non-binding and languag

HCNM), y and

i

int

n

these

Varennes. public u or

languages.

se

written and rights documents

employ NationalMinori

he of The Cooperation authorities. belong languag

media; their

Broadc es

national

contacts.

documents—with rights

administr

the of

and list—are

use thesis

to as ment ia and

national

languages. 3

private and es,

9 b dialects standards

ast the the:

well of

y

in minorit

He etc.

oral

The activi Media(2003). is

nature.

national Slovakia. will

N public European

ativ

use

reduced separates ties rather

m education; in as otwithstanding,

forms; i ties; rights inorities ies, n

i

e

b utilize Europe by Europe; n Publ

of y

proceedings;

PA The The m use

med

basic

the adm inorities

use

protection

special belonging b

Recommendation

ic and by

m

use two y significance

first ia;

Lif CLARE this

European of inorit inistrat

the private

hum (

e in

OSCE),

xplanator e and main

names,

(1999).

and

is

religious

categorizat fact

emphasis their an y

the

ive

in Recommendation organization, official official e

regime to sections rights. xplanator

that

3

areas surnames

private y

6 U i

the and

and mportanc note and

nion the 928

none

private

on

cultural ion use u power public

where (1998),

is In

y (1981) se how, High

(

u

note see not the the and and

se 14 of of in in e ,

CEU eTD Collection 45 Language RightsandPol 44 43 empires. new 42 Carmichael “Nationalism, as 41 the the deter the defining identit sacred “language in continuous of Europe. impor perceived over of Grin Georg W Barbou Much

case assuring products anal

national I il nations’ identit (non-

/ l min the

&K tant B.Lang Ky y

e There The ” of duty of ys 4 r Schöpflin,“Aspects Language

mlick 1

44 es ele historic)

point countr

(Oxford:Universit ym elem

is

the .

as y non

There

becom

of

nations, oflinguistic

one’s

ment

that

”

licka L

historical powerful

consciousness of Schöpflin a 43 a

li s an are

modern

teratur

and out real uage historic ent

gu

y. and

new 2003,11. the

nations are

of ag

es

identit cases ofnation- that Alan rights

42 threat

There e,

e

p dominant ethnic

a

countries that

itical Theory “ and states; on Europe,” communication

olicy andn

[l

experiences and Pa ke

nations.

born ]

argues where minori y

nationalism—Breuilly a tten, of

ofL y

y

to countries n “ are

as Press,

gu groups,

com

sy mutua

minori

in the

building.

of ages language an “ well

mb in

Lan cases—as

(majorit

where language gu

t mo national

that Europe

, eds. Km 2000),13.Thebookintroduces y domin L

ol ag gu can rights anguage

ationalism l as

ties, , n

and

e

ag where yl

that and dependence of andEthnicity W

in

been the national e ic language

y

ant il

Rights national

appears unification

language as

ka

l K C evenmore a language

since

/

polic Slovakia me

llow and entral

seen

official alread language, ym it reinforces ,

mb

Greenf still

and licka

N

partly the y ational

language the

ership

has

i

as identit of y

and

P

n Central play of policies andAlanPatten(Oxford:Universit

movements

olit effective / itself

indicated, eld—divides

also interesting.

the 19 a state) play as

languages ical ism

and Eastern s Barbour’s

fundam th products in

y an

countries

ed becomes , illustrat Theor

i

centur

andEastern n

the

as helps

becom and language function even

Europe e a

a

or

xamples

very are nation.

y

enta

result Europe Europe

: of protecting y

from

C greater es—where and

to

argum e

modern

often onte ing ,

the represents in

l i cornerstones eds.

mportan

Europe,”

fromallover promot

is sy

secession 4

language xt,

5 in of the nations holder

mb

appropriatel Stephen to

language

ent, in

This Issu role nations, states.”

old ol case conflict it

es,

e t

w

minori

Trans

in beco

of

(historic) of

connection role a

ou hen a

and is

Barbou

polic

the

reaction

Europe.

and of t the y Stephen

statehood, of co

P undeniable

ition of is mes Approaches,”

in he

with mm t ress,

y 21 constructing

old nat

y distinctness y

m

the the

r

spoken

24/1996. states nation

st rights

can ultinational ions and al

2003)13. on

centur

the historic Barbou

against most revival central makes

Cathie be partly civic s

aim

that and

and are

all 15 an

in y in r, a ,

CEU eTD Collection 52 Democratic 51 50 49 I 48 47 Nat 46 and protection, well seen ver group case used national heterogeneous nation- of is emph mo states’ within social from RES Törnquist-Plewa Rogers K Törnquist-Plewa Pr See Barb

ionalism inEurope, demo me y ym ime

sincehisnational Thesis,Budapest:

it

aim to m to as the licka

nt ara

and

rea ma ore states mu min

were There There Brubaker

asized

izat apply

‘comple crat of democra

S

Törnquist-Plewa, neighbors of &Patten2003,3. y sons i lti

ister

n

creation lovakia).

as independence. ion

restrict ic

ethnic Language separating

strongly

,

is inrelation are

by

language of

transition and

2000,206. 2000,204and215. of

can 1996,56. an

y te Sl

tic

et cases referring these ovakia Mečiar’s

increasing eds. language this states, CEU,1997.

of lead its

or

ma Pol

conceived ist emphasiz

a Barbour,

rights.

“historical itself polic nationaliza “w

states icies turit

approach

between to nation, “Constructing to in

47 both government hen

H

the CEE. to The y

as

y polic from . ungarians

consensus

has

Stephen of

Indicators

a

ed the If sociall

1992-

s

and described Both am

distinct

49

a

y strongly as the

not in enemi tion.’

others.”

given

e newl wa

adopted Brubaker 1994

cases

Ethnic order

andCathieCarmichael ‘reaction’. y em ye nation- of s andCzechs.

of

and

t

es”. and y that

erging

and language

state been The

these N

favored picture

when 52 independent ational thestrictS to Nationalism:

46

economi

1994-1998 still states. language

In ju

uses leadership

ma comple

Bey

m indicators stif

Slovakia a ism

is y is As inorit

the‘onestate constitutes

nation

5 y 4 on

the affect 0 an

8 s

in tate

cal

uitable

their a d

(leader

ted,

polic Estonia This

impor Eastern

y ter languag l result

historical y, states

(O

makes of

creates the

m

both and separate the are y xford:

of

for Vladi tant

‘national

expres play

and minor

of

Central a

the e

linguistic that

in

lawin1995.(See kinds of Slovakia,

one basis

University

dem

having S indicator

Peop

s a mír

experiences lovakia, connection

CEE language a sion it national national language’

ands,

y vital Europe,” le’s izing- of for

M living

developmen ečiar secondar

differences

Part

that by

Press,2000.) where the denotes

role

of as

states’

Tünde

y— language existence

polic

on in

separation

nationalis

a

m illustrat are with notion. economic in Movem

result Language separateness ore the

y the Puskás, y

instead

ethnicall inI

po that migh

m

territor t of 200. process

ent

es

can inorit sitions 51 with I of at

I m,

/ ‘new

B

C of

for

t this and and .2 the

the the

EU 16 be be of as

)

y y y a a a

CEU eTD Collection 57 (Budap Rights,” 56 55 http: 54 W 53 context nineties be education general education states Linguistic categor cultural regime assimi which b Firstl interconnec following to restriction, See Arzor y

orking theintegrit Kontra, See Farimah

discovered states //plato.stanford.edu/entries/libert m y,

est/New m can lat 2007,5-6. ore

includes

Paper follows. y Secondl The

of

the ore in heritage is in ,

ion astheir Ph to

inHorváth

Daftar

linguistic

Language, b is restrict

Human

Romania. mad

ilippson, in: litera and tion two

y minorit

theory #8,September ( York: provided,

y others obfu

among ofthestate, I.

y, y e

the

rights of

ture

Kant, governm of and categoriza

availabl the the

CentralEuropean scating

&Scacco Rights

y

nationalism

S

particular

the a pro

introduced

call 57 kutnabb- Kinga distinguishes co

age- the authors

Right

I

that . restrict

mm A motion

minori

Berlin, this

fter

e, 2000,2. recent who distinguish group

ents, 53

Gál,

uni 2001 tions

and protect Kangas thedemo and

negative having

dem

of

ties: t

,

the y ,

sho the y

“The T.H.

a - which

;

thus language

po Slovakian and

reduce

Universit culture. the Resource:

migh

ands

number sitive-neg

two

right wn later, and on

speakers Marschall,

New

set the

book

‘three

crat far

the rights includes

Várad regim t for

the holders

range the 5 S

y 5 ic

enlighten— one lovak

should

P policy

ative/ of

Approaching Language education minori ma

donotwishtopromote Slovakia

y theoreti ress,

wa es number or ,

of

languages C.

hand “Conceptualiz

of

turit

ys (access

or La certain

1999)10. freedom

m or , Tay

school ng t and inorit finall two of

y y

beneficiaries cal ua there lo

might

language al restricting

and in of r ge ed

a

levels

minori L positive fram or policies, y

y on21Ma

inguis

5 Right

through La people

4 sub

the is ) Rom languages i be ing

n w: belesserdeveloped.

and the

ework jects

Stanford

tic

of t Int

and translated y case rights ania and

regime on rights

protection ernal

Human language y protection

entitl and are. which

2009) for Impl

of the

a mult both

studies, 5

from Ency could are

or 6 w

Resource: ed the ementing

to

other

hich of Right These Ex minori

icul

belong perceived preserve cl to into

thesis, linguistic

ternal rights

opedia discri that be

w

s,

m minori turalis

hand orks

also—how inorit eds. seen practices Lin practic

t

can y Pol

mina to

the Approaching in

of guistic education

the itics in

Kontra there m.

t

the be as education: during y

y- tolerance Phi European

-

e. tion practice.

mediu

med ?” national a

granted losoph

former

Human

migh threat is

ECMI

et

The ium

and the the the

17 all m in y: t ,

CEU eTD Collection April 2009). 59 58 towards apoliti comp Thus minor polic adoption needs impor first minorities CoE further ‘minor power I The I Article .

I

M

I /A.TheEuropeanU two EUhassupranational y

and let

the it tant

to it special i of regarding y A Minority bring Sta “[

n ing y 128 protection.

s

inasmuch

t o

be of the adoption

enforce ] protection

tes, consequence and the h r

the

e of ing t i the

founded

t

O

attention Community

whi

y the present

cultural cal SCE, single

he commoncu protection Maastricht P

ment le cultural Maastricht union,whichalread

r of

as The o re

framework

as

t

spect on

it the

mark e

bodiesand research of ispaidto of diversity

c is well Treat

t a

sha

the

this Maastricht diversity i ing

not

has Treat o et

particular nion and‘itsm Treat ll

n

ltura

as

Copenhagen

and supranational y the

an con beco

a y statesthat

is i of the . of theEU-moni s

ir s able

y l he

internationa S

tribu

the

put —which

ource: a the Europe. nat

(1992) me EU

ritag

C Treat

tomakedecisionswithoutunanimi

articl y econo

te ional in

EU’, migh a o

have

http: to n e to significant the

y d e criterion

there

in t

and

mic can status

he i the //www.eurotr The

t and th of l,

t ority p include context toring all i

e fo

o but f

lowering the EU’s reg

be

integration—hav

n European was the com

re.” is

a ional

t

seen sys

is EU factor

olicy’ o that

supranational creation

the

mi of 5

no approach 9 examin t

eaties.com/maastricht te

h

tt

Treaties. the

protection d every o at m. ed reference e

ivers f

in

Union, the

E least

European themselv

the ed, U of ity

single

cu towards -

post-Cold the M e

as and this ltur

ho t

Until opened organization. y ofminorit

for e

among an European es

m wever,

act es a chapter

enlargem t

b the

indirect

of

language

to the the ec.pdf or e

i

t

r

up

he War the ts member.

establish polic

s

s differs mo ame h

ies. introduces

the Member

(acc i Union—after protection

p 58 ent, me period. reference y

t

pos is

essed ime of The

nt from sues

men and

the sibili

of

on most

The

t

and EU the the the the

18 of 25 of t to y

CEU eTD Collection Papers Delicate the deleg repres 64 report 63 linguistic and cultures measures langua 62 Minority ProtectioninEurope four issues touching chara developed 61 to themainconcern 60 towards of minor earl comp Council hand, wa nineties, protection, presentl concerning positive denom

The The The The Thomas

ys Minorities. Council

y groups ations cterized from

enting

andtheforeign ge etenc Afré (human The m

ind as (EI iti of Parliament inator

inorit

U of s the Relationship: —developed y

es

irect asa

in the minori dealing oP) reception nfortunatel b

and

1988i prevailing report

in region

y Benedikte

can 6 e, and or European internal all favor

culturalminorit

0

y by linguistic the 16/2000Vol.4,3-

the

rights protection

eighties.

resultofthe

the cultures related and

the

in

63 t be

a he

European minor ntended al Parliament adopted

ties

functional

of ofthi

is the

C reco EP

with

The EU and sphere pol

omm the

r t

m

he of resolutions

The y derives

gnized, adopted icies, d field inority Treat and

it 62

citi polic

, s thesis.

istinguishes ethnic

of

toestablisht and

Parliament reason

y ission. onl word an m

i the

n due

Parliament; zens, of m European

cultures, In

inorit

ies 1981 a

the y approach; — missing

anti-

inorities, y

the of national

intensive y charter

i Maastricht

langu d hence its

An Overview

m 4.

oftheEuropean to of n the interests

irectl from

‘minori

and

a inorities EU; of racism minor wanted More for

y

resolutions numb the

the

the ag

issues:

European

y- four

guardin the he

Union’s

and

further

its es of reference like 2)

3) elected

its

European E C (EP) on

minori

it different

pol

of

to

P twofold

measures t and

rights er measures y harter 4) active

in y’

groups non-

role

nature are t

minori

ic (Bolzeno/Bozen, develop his

Treat protection g not of

— the

the y,

cultures- does more

C Endeavors the

their body

d

ofR

ties i

refu opinions in

for

n iscrimination the m ommuni

European

towards i activiti

from ties

role ntroduction. inorit

of fol

y Gabriel

Union,onthe undertaken

taken Union of

ge

contrast national the

ethnic ights

fundamental both not suggested

EP’s out lowings:

has activities: appear e

O

being Bill y is po J theprim

t

for

of oriented seems y- i

es

appear for

C68 n lic

and abstained in twofold: N.

m Com

O

comm

still of the

Ethn 30November t y minor

much inorities- J C61,28.2.1994,p.110. he

of

the (its) principles,

Resolut Togg

R b etc.). interests to In

the 14.3.1983,

non-binding

y

framework munity ights

1) three

the

keeps the

and

ic Minori the rather

pol Amsterdam

the ar

it M an

easier enbur Groups.

other. guard it measures During me

y inorities,” icies,

develop European of y European ion yw O

human

EUlaw,the

EU-inst firstly, - from

J

OJ European nt Minorities,

quiet ties

g t

is here on he on impossible,

to C

2006).

p.103;

which 61 sues. “

to C318,30.11.1987, of of

the

A

a equality 287, in the

which

rights.

taking

itutions, t C

of the ment resolutions

R he regarding

‘European Europe. the nineties Co

in European ommuni

European ough

and

stil

Parlia Res. main 9.11.1981, EU

mmiss

Despite protection

and the

sen

l

Comm

EUchosetwoother

directives

of

are Thanks Nice finding forei

Orientation

l up

on

which

y later

onl t sitivi Legal the men the Treati ion y

relevant

pol

level, Integration the charte gn y further direct

in Treaties. and

the ission values,’

Bill two EU

itical

t, p.106;

t p.160; po to the Instruments

is langua

y

the do es.

a of on

Stauffenber

lic

than r

the the

out of

inspired

t of of since

Through no

o comm minor y,

charact national field, missing

the

powers minority Council,

re the Res. t national ges of Res. or Rights through withou In

6 belong

online 4 gional

these

The

one and the the the and

EP

it

on 19

on by on er, as of

y g a t

CEU eTD Collection (EU- 67 context ofenlarg the 66 Resolution onregional have Resolution on aspects: 65 the the ‘minor groups direction minor instead elaborat unwillingness conventions Parlia more Firstly, less and considered polic majorit resolution secondly

E.g.: Péter The

Co con word word

Ground been com y

mmiss

men iti com word . Resolut

it

Göndör,

y (1) Later, by

of sequences es ing y while

, mi

sentenced

for ’ Notwithstanding,

referred

became

in t the

mi

resolutions, Ltd., general protecting

started contributed ion ‘g in

tt a their Vojvod

most ion ener ed. tt Europe, approvals,

adopted success,

differences ement from

the ed, on “A the 2009.)332. and

on

al’

European

own The by Co ofthese

much onl that ina to Parliam re protection

position and

probabl and is the lack

gional

mparison the

measures 2005,

be

onl y used

w

reasons lesser- culturaldiversity and by

Minorit

of to to Albanian beginning

hich

emph whereas wider y of

the

region the in and the

ent on

their other Resolution on y

legally

the

the of

support used European

the 6 if

the

adopted departed 5 lesser-

changing trusted protection European asized

y than and the of in

the

above al

authorities language.

minori contrar decision Charter.

international and the

national

the non-binding ECR

of

u

CoE the e.g. sed

on

of in lesser-

—4.9.2003 the latter EU reasons M

in y

m t

from sign

European specific y

attitude

the

L the to Parlia

inorities in

and of langua in

1994

nineties, 6

making phrasing,

the

related 7 and minori Moreover used ‘specific’

s needs

national

re the Finally

other

); the of

the

solutions.

the

men do

documents, minorit . s ge and langua organizat

uccess of langua European this

s

ties

FCNM,”

O traditiona 1999).

not

Kosovo 1999,

process unani reports the t (2) EU

the

SCE minority

,

used

has minorit , ge

s the ies,

the ge measures

hift

elim a attitude s, EP.

institutions, 66 s—13.12.2001; mit

s of

broadening ions. with altered

t

towards hift protection he for

in

might

inate and mak The

ho Council; y

l

protection; Whereas ies, Minorities other langua

approach country ethnici to could

adopted wever,

Resolu

of es

EP

resolutions

within

develop Furthermore, their in be

ge

the it minorit

declara probabl

the

-

s

t

be easier of detected specific tion the

of

y,

might

the

of Res. on at specific of EP meri

onl

a detected

reverse

the language, of m

only Europe the on the

EP

decade an former inorities y with changed

y tions, ts.

protecting to

y content

bequestioned. recommendations y

issue

of

end linguistic

one

gave

i

followed

s in adopt kind recommendations Greek

The

because Unite! understood the

direction.

t

the

of

yp within s the in

needs charters

religion,

e

up has and

of t the of

real

m EP

he

of a following:

context by inorit

report the

comm m

rights rights its

EU the

eighties beco beca

can Tabajdi, the effects inorit simple of

in

y w plan,

in

new

The

(e.

and and who

ord (e.g

two the me me EP

the on 20 be

of of or to g. y

CEU eTD Collection 71 Source: 1993. to Membership economy the 70 to andcooper resolutions between 69 the Rights enlar particular 68 preconditions symbolical Com me ‘ Europe decided European second di the declarat divided fram more sexual respect Hughes

The “Membership E.g: t

he mb rule

I gement other I /B.Protection ework mun

difficult

Resolu aims L ership.

ht o orientation. Instead The OMÉ

ions that f &

as tp://ue.eu.int/ueDocs/cms_Data/docs/pressd ofMinori in

into for stress law, it

mension

Sas o

the

Council y negotiations”.

presupposes

ation tion f wel the

of

so

second

significance and pol

established towards IV

human

se

two

to

requires l In for the

polic on

. on Pre itical, 2003,8. desire wi of

as adopta

contained African,

ties] protection

the

Human

the EU asthe

th developing European 6 sidenc di elaborating the

8

righ established y

field

mensions.

economic

K The

rights shall

such o that history m the towards capacity

isebbségkutatás ts In f m

em Caribbean

‘comm firstfalls

R

criteria

and y

candidate's the Vi candidate or ights mere that

third bership, become in Conclusion of

zi

of Union’ respect first aspect

orities

countries;ortheStabil and Balázs,

m of

to i

national its

n minori future fact inorities

the on

countries

the to

proper On cope andPacific monetary

the

outofthe own country denomina

for

ab

be World

2001/2,281. and a that me Copenhagen where is “

A the

ility s accessioncriter

t

European w

and, me

the y

z

mbers meet human that

ith s

(ethnic, minorities’ it

Európai the

yste

protection mb to

one

ha in

union. foreign became

pro w competitive S

the

s take 1997

“ word main hich er

b tates m

tor’ ata/en/e achieved the tection

rights of y

hand

linguistic, minori

” Unió the states. of

on the

andtheCommun and

inthe

integrat

it as

I will

criteria scopeofthethesis.

has

n

policy y

the linked minor

clause Pact,etc.

sociated

c/72921.pdf of

Presidency as European interested 1998 és there

w stab

pressure mino ob t been

never a y as a field

ion ligation

kisebbség The

ion religious,

ility it part “calls protection of

in

7 to

0 rities, y included is

In used the

an

for

ofminori

the protection countries be

of

it next

of the

(acc and

Union C Tog on

E s

states.

i

EU onclusions

the it

nstitu

wa C a external of

agenda ek the y; in

the

homosexual, genbu me

essed foreign

market agr

C membership

existence s

. section j wider

ogai”

Co

appeared ouncil re tions political as eement This mb ” the

t 30November mmiss rg the It in

y

for er

part of

protection. ,

2000, [The forces

guaranteeing usage.

was

first

Central C context EU aspect

polic

of

o

enlarge openha discusse with gulations internal f ion

a

including etc.) European condition

of the

incorporated actuall

in 14-

tim functioning with and y

third

can

15. gen, the

the

EU, After and made e, at and

me 2008). in Counci onassis s

u

y the

states; democrac be w

‘minor the 21- nt.

onl sage, menu 69

adherence Union

politi Eastern of hen

for and it having further 71

22

t y market l ime Union.

great to even

tance

jo

The Ju

this

EU

the the and the cal it la

21 on int of ne of y, y y

CEU eTD Collection Cooperation 76 States.” rights of 75 74 73 72 of resulted This handicap’, legall parts the the rights widel concerns reports and from criteri b should the onl Art.49: Hughes Topidi2003,8. y Tog

the

Mark the

the

y

EU exception content built

genbu peccadil

fact— of y y 1998 andtheprotection r Union.” a

ights

establishm

EU,

As Probabl be

the viewed insome non-binding. decision & pla “ the Neville,

Any in upon

rg Sas 2/2004,2.

for

s ye by

and not Com most

2000, hown, criteria but of the EuropeanStatewhichrespects

lo, d Art. se

a the relating

y minority

2003,1.

fundamental

the being an

as “Europe: long-term perspective mission minori without

both

as makers, ent 17. likel 6(1):

Com

minori

impor constituting different into a

of

consequence on Due y y “ t to mission

T et

y

the

the

ofminori without condition he theoretica concluded having

Rights tant

t

group the protection

y

a

freedoms, effects

to

Union

criterion,

prim protection

part of parts

criteria role this

enlargem on

of

a

within ar

internal direct i of

; s

onminori

ties s

y of l

in the separation, E

of

uccessful

it founded

and that and

thnic law, the

of

might the w among the the remains

progress theprinciplessetouti

has

ere any

intention t minorit

practical he “

acquis ent.

the criteria. reference above overall, Minorit accession,

on

become ru transported

have state.

” ties

so le the

7 incentive

t 3 he unclear

the

ies.

of

One of called living ies referred communautaire,

candidate

deter 7

pr level, of the

2 l

aw, the 76

After

omit inciples

and an to

This ma the

and

problem

In

mined

in single principles ‘Copenhagen

it. w impor

into ted consists y structure Religion—L

hat ‘ publishing spite past

newmem

success asy the n Art.6(1 This

conclude o countries.”

f mino

the

the tant m liberty,

candidate its

M EU

of of me

weakness

wh

Amsterdam onitoring success. in

adequate

rity

is the

either m in stor tr ich

) decision inking the

may sue

ber y

inorit that democrac

the criteria’

, the

condition impl

are y’

w

74 missing states.

app on countries—were

hich first

and directl the

promotion

ies

Diversit common

Later

of em Reports—published levels the ly

makers—probabl

y,

t “criteria

Treat continues the round the as en appeared o become

respect

external y

explanations tat on

such y, has

enthusiasm

or conditions to of ” y ion the

7

t 5 Dialogue of indirectl protection he of

, a

remain

for amember m

but of

adopted

country

‘double to alread Member ight agenda human

human based

some

raise with

22

be ed of of y is + y y .

CEU eTD Collection Minority Issues 80 79 78 Europe: ( Minorities,” I 77 mag standards, countries and challenges the The that constitutes polic polic off’ that seems harshl nstitute, London: K Wi De Giuliano

yr I it candida to clea “This the

EU’s W lkens ic the undeniable I /C.Monitoring thesis approach ia y y s ownpa

line, y ki cr E itte 2000,140.

to of effects r

on

Topid RSC EU xplaining eate criticized

Routledge, 2004.

set

be obser into po

Amato the

in

which and te argues in ‘

the

o

double established

sition, Po

Europe i prima rti

on count f i, “The

the n Europe

me ‘demands’ ofEUconditionali within the vation licy cular became

t success an treatm and

he mb future might

ry that 2002); by Com Papers rily

Double-

L Unbound. and ad

standard

J cir ers;

perce imits of

udy

c

1/2003, its man

an m ent the hoc an cumstances

ame

mu

two

that

elim of

Hughes on

of and Batt, border 1998/5 ec be

ived

export S y nit

problem the

EUCond basis) of hanis tandard,”

t

the

Enlarg 1-2. he divergent inat exp s of mb scholars.

y

’.

an

“Minorit t ,

EU.

hese minori

; is

the lained

er EU

& but

e

Bruno sue b Topidi

m i

, i article t and

ofthe ing mposing y the y Sasse

2004.

o nter

regarding itionality ‘d established

of The at after considering becaus

and f theE

y

77 emands’

ties

effects

pol by De

approaches double the

ests Rights

(2003); EU.

also establishm

Reshaping

and

icy De two

the W

e

through same and domes : polic Minority itte,

U

of

on

Witte refers

of and s not

minori change di

standards ets it

Erika

conditions fferen “Poli s

minor the y

time the

EU

own one

o

the towards for

f ent

R to states

tics

conditionali conditional

Wi fac

tic is t Enlarg

tly Boundaries

ights ity y

of

lack for it

sue it—as outsiders protection lkens, of

, tors: pol

versus

set thu has r regi

inS

ights the domestic

that o

ement icies as and protection

s f

up

f

me weakened “Minorit sol

responding

ir lovakia,” one Copenhagen La a

st,

.”

[th of pro it id the migh

part

w

ty to

y b with

80

t areonl

t of

leg he

] y

he i tec

once

n t e ver

and he consumption.

y

influencing

European

t the isla of the

tion; p

EU Journal onEthnopoli

of Protections the result East,” rotection y

the the

t tion

EU's a o

factors—b P notion minor y f

ai

hare countr integration them limi and criteria

credibilit

led domesti

(which

European

in Approach Union

iti

s

ted:

to acco

non-expecting

econd,

financing, of in y of the es—a ”

pro

78

,

cros was

an

the it y ed. minorities

rding c

y

domesti

tended

University clai vide

The Enlargin national

to

of

Zielonka both

sed e double a tics ‘hands

ach

Ethnic

mi great CEE

to

a 7

and fact 9 the

23 ng — of c g

CEU eTD Collection 87 determination 86 85 Human 84 83 Accession Febru became 82 Accession Febru associate 81 also comp Europe EU’s and can countries. proble argue and minor beca Copenhagen DG organizing negotiat Slovakia, Hughes Hughes I R The The Slovakia’s n omania’s t beclassified

Enlargem

he standards: me les ar ar reduces

ila

collabora

it reports rightsand analy

m y y case in an y The When s

tion ions & & member 2000:Romania 2000:S more and totheEU;1Ma totheEU;1January

82 associate successful, of reference 85 their Sas Sas ofRomaniaalltogether

sis

bilatera

andEx way

s

wa first

of detailed linkage ubm In started, criteria

OSCE; se se of ent the the lovakia prepared y

theprotectionof tion

2003,18. 2003,2. the the study of

accordance t

owards into the towards group

itt member

of majorit ternal the credibilit

l

Reports,

ed

or authors in

ten minori talks 8

the

8

4 three officiall officiall between the 7

EU; although

that and interaction y the

M

their

accession: further

Regular

2004 refers with Com accession:

of

y inorit EU 22 and t

2007:Romaniabecame y

acquis

to

group of t

minori

y

y he

y with argue related :Slovakia became me J

official

mission

greater une m the

began s y s the

publishing

of to more EU;

tarted tarted Protection’, EU tenRegular Reports the aning inorities >

1993:Romania

1995: the acquis

s: , their the Central

with 1993:The

t 1995:

that issues

y moni 8

mem

positive 6

accession accession

s there

relation comp

applica protection yst annuall the Romania Reports’

published

study other Slovakia the

toring M co em bership under:

reinforced Regular Reportswere lack and

inorit lian

mmunautaire independent is amember at Reports

tions effects

negotiations; negotiations; internat y,

the ica

of

s Eastern

sub amember

a of ce

igned B.

the

8 subm y on 3

statemen rights

ll

the

is lack

mitted conditiona and citations critiques

with Cr y

Reports.

allt

for

Romania’s minority

iteria the itted

moni the oftheEU. do EU of ional

published,whereas

andtheprotection the

he

European of S

EU

EU

oftheEU. i

Europe it lovakia ts not

most

i critiquesofJa

. 25 ts 23

with

ts; for

tor

structures

transparenc

official

are Within

organizations

and official

towards law.

me

April

April

lit The

Membership inform

and condition the prog

y other extre

undeniable. Agr mb naming resigned

and Reports

2005: countries,

application 2003: ress progres But application

finall eement; ership y

me

ea

the of u internat

mes

completed compl s ofminorit as Romania y rs Slovakia i

them y n case

proved

t of about

case

> monitor he & the in

a

s

such

and were 1994: the

1. s

Sa

result of

for Europe ources

for with

the ianc

candidate ional P ofS

Hughes applied

sse.

for

oli the

authors s s the once Romania

EU- as EU-

ies. igned igned published for

to tical ing e

process

lovakia

Romania

of the

anal candidates

membership;

membership; organizations nature be Agreem by the (IOs,

the the mech

criteria

t the

both he Council

and a y

class

candidate countries became only miss

zi

difficult Treat Treat

missing

official N

ng

ent of

by of anis 8 to Sas

GO

1 s ‘Self- >

and y y ix

the the the the the the and

1.2

b 24

15 15 of se m an . of s) of y

CEU eTD Collection 91 “ arms, first 2002 90 re Reports however, developments anchored, cultural 89 88 with leaves impor with candidate me moni critic recorded that Finall sections that which change processes, critique specificat Access Hughes Hughes

gardin R Evidences chanis omanian

in 2002:“

the Report

the toring ism the that in y tanc

ofRomatoIDdocuments...

alone g much refe

These

Hungarian

order the t of & &

political decided points imp he of in

Reports m, ion

of without e by Sas Sas r

countries.

with

laws, need

mechan e

ofboththe

the for only 2000

third xample:

the Development happened

however, lem

the cannot

to to of

se se stating

critiques

such

the

2003,16. 2003,14.

fora

Reports

allo be t

for out

aquis the en - o

section even the German

aspects group

are statement: establish

desired. tat s w t I inconsis

ism

he pecif R n referred evaluate

that

e NM in ion

t ,

the omanian

that he stablish 88 If successful de they criteria asthe

was the 2001

of first

can

before,

first w signed y the to of (Petőfi- removal as of

in tenc

hich a

critiques there The

“ use

indirectl

g candidate

the

no Hungarian

four a human outco s t the onl Reportsarecharacter and he y

men remainsanissueofconcern

tate andthe

amendment any

con progress

their

from

functioning Schi

sealed ver

Copenhagen

case y the as ye actual of funded

is

t foremost me

sequence ar acknowledge

y

ller) problems

of las

symbols success y s

t rights

very refers an he disappears fact

t

migh

t state he

monitoring

states’ of institutions, wa

the

Reports Hungarian developm leg of Universit

ab top

s that the of same

al

noted

sence funded and leg t to success ic at

this aim also stories, obs

of

islation on m of criteria above off the

technical in

from on

minor

inorit tacles linguistic i amb w y. icial the

nstitu

university

previous ith s the at ent. university EU R of

isundeniable, peak

I

omania ized and

n t of

89

regard iguous he

the missing

gatherings s

y tion,

it

continuit

of are existence hort neither ”.

1998

and This y policies the t

Reports.

In

he by

about

issues

the t integration

rights he European

not

use and Hughes

.

are

to

analy

in

evaluation

ye

ad hocism so and establishment picture absence

launch the

ofthe

no reall

e.g.: R developed EU ar ”;

the y

omania, and the

In

standards

nor

s. Csángó damning

si 1999 Ro of &Sasse however,the and

9

s Csángó- 2001 covers y qualit 0 nationa bench

ma-

positive to introduced forma U is of is

translatab

derives

The

nion

andinconsistenc posit

issue

coherence the

received

t compar of mino government the he

y

onl comment 2003,15. marks was incentiv

case

l

as l

of the

ive Sapient w f

Hung authors

y lag, e.g.: rity and measures

ording: the well. from the eng develop

appeared developments le politica ”; ed

imp anthem

sanctions

arian I issue

and rained,

as

Using D its ia, changes into show

es or

in

the

cards

a

The lem

the finish

to

monitoring

progra

the

of government, evaluat

contrasted ments re

the

particular

and coat l of up

first ver

(e.g. continue

bu t sult: following en

he y criteria. y

in second

sy . later t

91

tat y in

in

claim

mu EU’ mbols i

as 2006 their n

ms), were

fact

ion ion the the the are the

the lti- 25 on no of s :

CEU eTD Collection 92 criteri countries—as and level the integral minor impor representation Notwithstanding this moni perfectl following condition, case Hughes

thesisisthat nineties.

toring other of of a. it tant y In y

& part incompl the

, protection

Sas spite developm and which

conclusion

significant process,

candidate of

se

Furthermore,

in

as of 2003,30.

the all theunsuccessfulconditiona etion

did all

Slovakia the the

‘EU

of

ents was

unfortunatel the not

establish can of

minor countries: these

develop

rhetoric,’

‘handicaps’

or in finall the

be

and could these European

it

critiques

conditions y dra y

men

ments

Romania—ar concern

acknowledged y

9

a wn: issued 2 not ,

number s t re

o

in

of mained

hamper

the integrat the

(e.g. the

the

the

changes resulted

in

relevance other

m

establish of

lit criteria the

awareness

e inorit s

the ion. y ym po

undeniable might

within

side external

sitive

bo accession not

in

y Thanks

li of

men was

that

condition c of onl result

the the alterat as

t

raising, the

y

considered lack

relation of well.

minori

on EU consequences to of

inbacklashes

coin the ions,

an these the

of

fram did

M y Copenhagen t

etc.)

y fulfill

should European candidates. of oreover newl

not que ework, evolutions

a the

stion s within me y carry ym

adopted also of afteraccession. EU,

nt

the bo and

level,

improved the

of

criteri li out

be As suppo the the c

the

it the

Copenhagen

victor

mention its y legislat a became

but ‘value’

a candidate

result are mino

sition

mission and

during on y,

ver

ion,

rity

the

ed. the the the

26 an of of y

CEU eTD Collection 94 Bucha no.5). parts called (Har Source: rural (See the Komárno- Slovakia, 93 the starting the and avoid (see essential. achieve Copenhagen Roman condition To of concentrat A I

A I In c

I

these cohabitation majorit detailedpresentation

answer c

.

githa-

Advisory

more Sas S In of

set in e

rest. lovakia the M Onl his S s

Transl Romania tlements. ia A

s chapter se,

zabómihály

the toricall i Komárom, in Hargita

See countries y i — a y. fter same i n

n o

ceases

e

1%

The o dis I the name n first footnote : successful comparison, n

on m yv r

The

tricts m

setting condition

i y Comm ani of ore

:

t

m unicipalities main

~85%, the All presentation

S y ofmajorit I/A.2)

the l Hunga The a, the zékel inTable to y istake

i

2006,7. Galanta- near L

before

where

no.5), municipalit Slovakian concentrating exist,

a to situation

question wouldgo ma it up yf Covasna- n tal

rian tees t and öld evaluation he

the jorit g

the

develop

6. the and t Hunga

u

he

Galánta, what

of 2004

Hungari ht minority y

(

a y EU Székely

of a

tp://www.ciemen.org chapter

andminori 94 Hunga southern 76%

g theoretical ies

of bey Kovászna

paralle

e of of and Council rian before

kinds

t comm and with

he men

R

l on an the the

iving Nové rian

la

onl

i i Romani commun d s

Hunga and

nd).

g border

S

thelim 2007,

presents a l concentrat ts more

thesis lovakia legislat h y

population of

it

is ~74%, the in

Zámk t

on

ted t and of

s y and compar long-ter The Hungarian rian drawn

inthe

(90%). than

it i it ofthe in accession an Europe the with — n y

y-

t

and achievem ion rest he

practica communi

the

l ed w Érsekújvár, /mer S ives

case list

90% legislative Hungarian reach hat

l

given ison

in

in between s m of o I follows moni t pecial n

cator/pdf/wp23

v Mures- outs hesis itconcentrates majority

of

the

the con are happens studies several of es a

l t

k has

y

the

historical ide

southwestern, countries. en 20% Hungarians Hung

framework, sequences

toring i also

is

attention a S Maros

ts m

more of

túrovó-

the

concentrated background—dissenting to d set

indicat inorit

a of arian and istricts

have

Trans n in

tlements. presented.

mech total be two

d ~

eng

y the

or

introduce Párkány

understandings

39% m

reach R

yl introduced,

have

ion to .pdf population

(Dunajská

does

inorities to

less va countries. sou

o countries anis the ont

nia, m of Hungarian be Most

. See es

thern in of fewer

,

the a

it the he m,

following

10

etc.)

t detailed.

main n

hree

But m mos result

the

l

critici of

population), the ive % i

and

list Streda- a ore (compar

than

the

of

Hung l

once t importantpoint counties

y and

sporadicall above

B inTable minori starting

Furthermor sou

the

of in

Hung in

e that co zed 5000

f Dunaszerdahel theastern

arians

the

total De Slovakia two o e the mm

the

In opinions formul

r

wi arians

by

all, t

this e in capital

y 1and2. inhabitants.

Varennes

th

popu uni

resulting mino y

order chapters

Hughes point constitute E policies Romania

footnote territory i b

n

U part ties. e—to l efore

ive lation

other ated s. rity - and city

27

of to of in is y 93 , ,

CEU eTD Collection törvén State [The 12/2007, 96 95 had guaranteed Roma Hungarians which and Appony 1868—finall first facts Hungarians the of from Kingdom and historical coexistence II Based

I /

More national

a

Hungarian

A

b often

and Language ssim ye opportunities that the irth

w found . Historical

i ht The A The

on adatbázis”[Database i 4

as proclai

tp://www.minority of s ; 18 concernshave

indeed

in ila

Slovaks from

Katus this: disputed

a

a

elite.

th

by

majorit

tion during

1907 of and y result scope m themse

and

La

inorit

w

internationa S Slovakians

politic the

ofm Lá

zarka w

as enlightened Germans,

19 In

med

and szló, f and were

y the

y-

11 not ram the of

lves history th to act. order

inorit m Lá

centuries th al

inOctober

the Slovak other

Eg

inorit the

full revolution szló, centur tobemen organize To

e ri not within upper w y

ghts.or of

Minor

to ies.

the l . or kisebbségi and y

as 9

thesis

1000ye

involved 5 treaties,

Modernizáció y adopted

express m successful k

anniversar y

9

politic well

6 relationship

ities. The inorit g/3533/slovakia/slovakia-

H when class the until

ungarians, 1918.With

tioned politic

in ar does

boundaries

Cri as present

y s’

törvény al

as the WWI. laws the the in 1848–49.

Hunga

y act—adopted tical smal elite

a of

in politi todrawafram all

és not gro

national Slovaks

part

the

during

y minorit Analyses

mag between ler s rian territor supported wing , and zületése.

The

1868. allow cal thecreation

of econo of y

acts]: groups

ar

The

Roman

po

tensions the

osítás the aspirations national

the y s

m y and upported

wer,

inorit Az overview.html#history

a mica protection, b

ht the

of new

Ver gro y

19

tp://www.1000ev.hu/index.php

the

of compl

[ Remarks ework

1868.

ians Modernization the

Slovakia th Slovaks y wing that sailles

ll

ofthenewstate Ruthenians, state. between independent act], consciousness, centur y

Hungarian ,

and évi ete

were the the forthefollowing

and ,” Régió tensions

and treaties,

nem

Though

y UNHCR imp

Hungarians, Habsburg s and w

um

established supported the , culturall as

zetiségi

4/1993, lastl and lem

ma

Hungarians

Ukrainians, part

parties ; Daftar Czechoslovakian N were

r en and y Mag m 1996; ational

y and almost

inorit

that tat törvény

4 of y force of ;

y

—e minor

y loaded ion M ‘mag a

dislike however, by beca &G rization], and

the chapters. PA, so the

. y A spe

onemi

of both

ál

évfordulójára rights against ssembl the

ha

y called Hungarian me 2000,9- it “

Poles

a The cial historical

Europe’s y

s ri with

towards “Ezer

za groups group visible a Korunk

l Slovak

s

y were

tion’ llion

state

long ome y

Lex

and

the the 12.

28 in in év s

CEU eTD Collection 102 of no local the and 101 this Slovak prohibited 100 Bohemia were substantial Slovakia population, which populations 99 Hunga 98 Edwin Bakke gen issuing 97 and disputed com as collec this under disintegrat heightening grievances Hungary before minor comp

Hungarian Based: The The E.g.:

“Along

education The : Katalin eral

legal an 1989.

mu then period bod confiscated,

rians; arison War

tive iti

C

the

nationality Beneš Clo restrictive discriminatory the

ai The zechoslovak nist and

s ies

es and http: tatus

Nevertheless,

m

the history wi

discrimination it

sure and (1938–1945).

and leadership Vadkert

guilt exchang ed, were inthe claim

beginning

childrenrec Moravia.” regime r, th

on beca

and

use //www.minorit a wa

Hungarian

Decr to

Minority Conf

of tension

the Ro confiscationof of and part

had

the s legall between m

other of wa

ma, .

i me orders, of ed Ro

ees im 102 S mm inorities

es: y, set,

lovak the

the s gove numbered of minori

mani, ethnic mediate AResz Slovak

the

Hunga

y practices following Source: a (1945) as The

“Nazis

ed

Hungarian of

the eiving

guar among of countries part at first signed

and

rnment

70,000 closing iate existence

schools Ru

Tiso.

the

and the yr and Hunga licts inSlovakiaandHungary? Hunga first

anteed. rians lovakizáció

t

aftermath The

ig

thenien/Ukrainian denied y m S of l

independent and side,

hands

http: y the

protection t hts.org/3521/ appro i lovak and World heir

the

other- n

and curtailed

to after the Romanian Magy Slovaks

continued

down rians rian

langu The on education, their

//www.minorit

events

‘Pragu In

in proces ethnic

rights

ximately and

of cit 90,000 of H the

tongue

practice,

m were

Central izenship World ag

most [ t ungarian who

sy War ar he Hungarian crucial

inorit The re-

C

territories e

mpathizers this the

t

e

o

presence

zech Czechoslovak, s in didnotchange

Spring' Hungarians t

romania/romania and during

were instructionfellb o marked

were Slovakia,

education

langua

70,000. Mostof II, flagrant all rights of y

bear cohabita

or part however,

propert War

slovakization to

fled

and

pub discrim yr annexed German

expelled H

forced supposedly

Kingdom.

ethn of ig t

ge and

ungarians. annexed

he

by of

lic

of hts.org/3533/slovakia/slovakia this

deported or II. 1968, in Eastern

in

brunt use

y ic ethn

genocid

violations places.

tion

ont history 99 German a were

these Transy

the Capellea/dI

s inat

and

Hungari S

languag to period

‘re- and

lovak ic an the Hung

With

-

his territor ] (Bratislava: of to y mother the

overview.html#history significantl Hungar

ion. almostahalf.” victi has, Germans

expelled rights and Germans,

The e, all slovakization’

commun emplo Hungar 9 Europe—stil Transy southern

8

lv 150,000-strong schools,

and is forced arians, ans,

y es,

ms 9

the murdered

an

7

aim

are

of

though

to y tongue In often were and

, occupation ym

The ia of

jissel:

closed y.

y and

minori Nazi

adoption

after of and ist lv , Poles

resettlement, 1939 ent. between the

dates previous Kalligr

which

ignored.

an

den re-

the y region assi

First a

misused and La Hungari .

Source:

further ia 1 almos s In 1945. German a all main 01 yi and lovakization

milation

l t

creation b

y

ng back the to

had

Daftar

y shorter, German

were in am, authorities. Hung

began. Vienna

ri

rights 1970 and

representation ‘mag

of - The Ukrainians t nth, .

of overview.html#histor citizenship,

Hungarians

the ans 44,000

1993). all Ibid

Czechoslovak

sources been

deportations,

the to by inhabited arian y

Czechoslovakia 1997,p.49.

y,

government y policy

of

population in

a

& inter- 100

of the footnoteno.99.

occurred

rization’.

was

nationalists

Award, Beneš but Sl was

1989

several

Gál

a

were i a Their ovakia

nsti

were

10

mul

between

nation-

D

established war t

of

and a o (2000)

majori experienced tutions, th

i uring t

resettled n

he restore

ti- properties not

Decrees centur

and wa 's

accorded state historic More provided

l shortly number during through iving period

ethnic Jewish

y

t state

state s: 1948 mass

y cites less

y

and the and for

the 29 .

in by b on to y, in y

CEU eTD Collection policies after the the 107 even education langua Romanian towards in 106 kill 105 King smaller from reform The 104 during 103 understandings Roman widespread Roman Hungary Vienna and governm the Roman War coexistence two the region

Trans The

Betwe Between ings Romanians W During

Terr

18

Hunga inthelate1980s,Romanian television andradio population. Ferdinand

during

com o W the I, ge

ther different

ag th

undertaken

a plots) yl

main

ians, ia—which ia

s These assimilation. I

en H

centur , Recognita.

classicalperiod. vani , ainst the

was A ent mu

and

105 (2) rian schools. was ungar this

ethnic t 1952–68, ward, t

he repressionbothofminor

the

he

l nit

a, to

Versailles but

until completely y

was t

I, claim

langua and he

two

i W

period,

but nterpretations ratified y peasants ies with

chang historical 104

interwar

y

R

can groups) W I minority

in Roman Romanians

The

W

i

promised omanian

during lost

ts

The the

migh

the descent 1921, ge a The was

Although Ws

I.

Hungarian,

powers

ed Hunga even

Source: some

authorities Peace

was

in

WWI, the (the in

Romanianized, the territories

e governm

were t 's terpret

ian

mphases

Transy

among period, popu

have

1920.

ethn e cultural

from so

rian

World members oppo

majority state of xpunged of Treat

control for

called ht

d constituted events

self-rule ation however,

ispossessed lation. ic at tp:// Autonomous

lv

t ent had

men dis also

se y he the

anian

Romani

, the the The

the activities

tra.hu/imag

(3)

and Comm

of indigenous tribution oflandownership.

of War merg each from can

by

of

the ts

reduced region’s

was

except

Rom ti

the the

were whom Hunga it

aristocrats new harshest the

me y

the ed

migh

same official

be andmajorit ission is consequences following

other. an

of II,

the re-established

Hunga anian only Province

were and

of

considered for regi

were unificat large rians es/stories/MM/01/HU01_4PNG.png and

t shifted

he

t annexed popu majorit

m

Transy continueddail of

reasons the

reduced nom

107

life,

me

barel nu be inorit (mos

rian

in Romani Germans ethnic government and

landed

lation Hungarian mber events

inal.

was

It and aim

ion y

interpret Central t minority S

y. y of lv in ies, of lovakians can obs

m

Romanians).

the

106 After as all ania’s ed in

of

zation of less

the

the properties, inorit was t of

different hem tructed after

most no place-

the s t in

be for he since

1 ubjects y

Source:

Trans L s

transmissionsi

1968, scrutini

problema t northern

participated y- ed

iter the

Hungarians and

(Com Vienna such

Carpathian

than neglected

region.

the incorporation can langua compacted the

names by ature

its

Slovakian–Hungarian differentl

be

yl commun

which

with

isa

effective

This Eastern zed: Romanian ht w concession concluded directions,

va

earl seen Award

ge tp://adatbank.transindex.ro

ar.

at de

were

nia tic.

the move, part The (1) C

schools

y Ro region i or

might

on m n luj area

ist The

n Hung

beginnings

the manizare) Romanianized. with

land inorit discriminator assimi and y

A

(access

University the tensions

policy Europe—resulted ‘rom

official of

of approved s into

‘mag

by

be com who

(4)

that into charter, a being Hungarian

was

or arian ies. lated the

Trans

aniani result taught

the moved y

Romania, ed

Slovakians mun

were

a ‘sections' the

was the policies.

riz

forthcom andGerman. 11Ma

Kingdom . ‘slovaki t

between as The 1

hen by Nevertheless, 03 completed y ation’ yl

ist

established: zat i legac Hunga

Romani of

I historical n and po

b va case, Romania's n

sett

y given

Second minority

lic y ion’

the rule nia World

degr

2009).

. zation’ Higher lement

before within

y from self- y

rians ing,

land

the

the

and

zed

ees 30 (in of of of by or in in to

CEU eTD Collection 112 111 110 Petra Public 109 108 to there In in Copenhagen to impossibl demo the Hungarian historical cohabita but develop states even fram although Roman histor I The Daftar

TheSlovakianact

J addition, 2000 t effect claim án

isbe

I sections Kovács, II /B.Legislation ework also

craci

‘historicalreconciliation’ is y Buček, more

Management that ians

With y ? men the yo has tion.” &

grievances, e

that this the nd on es Mo

Gál2000,11.

minori to

(

the representation

the i and “Responding the

t two

particularl

mportanc Budapest: before,

the criteria

had

of

st minori 1 dra historic might approval

09

scopeof significanc

“situation

Hungarians,

probably the further collapse

The

w onm of to t y

a

Multi-Ethnic com

t develop

becam and L in w

y be borderline majorit e,

inorit t

y G

onm

mem to hich polic

he

1993,

facts I of mu

less in Books,2001)

affected

the Diversity thesist

of neither

e of

y

of seems e

laws nit both still langua of

or

y

Comm Hungarian and y– in majorit a have

true a

or y a ies,

language

of

orit concern more , m Communities

o introduce influence

of

t minor

on

only

: the are

these

i of o be

ge the

no

for the

So influenced when y languagerightsinRom which

unis s

territorial y

lutions the

276;orsee perfectl rit

thefirststeptowards

majorit

minor the

countries. when the relations

it populations. y historic

m

m y of parties rights,

the relations thepoli

only

the average is

is a

at are the in it y

the new y

underpins mino y the solel

depending

Cen cohabitat the

Várad distribution,

polic

friendl internationa language mer

grievances in

deepl Lo

tical between mom

tral

period

y minor rity

Would governmen cal

should

it populations true, hi y y

Since

and 1997,8-54. y

Le

th en y of condition stor and

thedissati vel is assumption(See ion. it t polic embedded

has Eastern

policies, the and y y

not of

both

it

ofthecountries

be

in

minor legislat continue l minor or 110

the

be

Sl com y

started given t continuit

liberated only an on

ovakia,”

coalitions. as

Slovaks

than the of accession Europe sfactor ia andSlova

it mu it

social- and well. ion y

y

the

on

in H

from nit to in

de protection, for

ungarian y

of in

m , y

European

m y mands.

play

m size the the from eds.

i

econom

, inorit Diversity is

and n the the H

inorit

the ore the

It the

negotiat owever,

the

cohabita

Anna

majorit inchapter is an and

countries:

n

these Hungarians,

elites. y kia y newl

adoption

an ineties protection.

right

importan

education parties,

ic

Buček

in as

U 1 Mária demographi exaggeration 11

nion ions

differences, y Action:

y 1 burdens referred it

tion (indetails). 08

answer. – I emerging

mi is I

I

Bíró

Firstly,

/C started In

started

rightl as of t no of rather

.1).

Local role,

gain

and this rit the the the and

31

112 of in y y c

CEU eTD Collection 117 and LanguagePolit 116 115 Minority See not status The 114 113 the Slovak drafted of individual the autochthonous and specific took there Hungarian (RMD Roman role, internat Adopted Gi It

Carmen

The

significantl national

more

treaties, isbey same laws Slovak respon

zella

but as III / are

SZ) bilateral

ina

ia The The The Pro ional national nation-

it m in S

ond B.1.Minority the i refer Kettley between ti language

zabóm inorit n 1992.Text

Kinga

tection? has participat and

clim me

Coalition

sibilit

Slovak most final thescope

y minori

language good pressure

treat chang

building legislation hence to not languages: guarantees y

, ihál ate Gál, ics

“Ethnicity ies

impor these act, ECMI y impor been

i 1996 neighbor

yi ed Con ties ofpolitical wi use. n Transi

forthe ed Bilateral indirectly , ofthethesistogo :

“

th the

w Part

http: on La

Wor

as

stitution

tant rightsinthe rights.

in

hich proces tant Slovakia

are the and

1 and ng ex 15

, the

//www.gov y the

InRoman a first isting ua L tion Count the king

onl

mutual

legal could

an

the Agr

( treati

comm lists ge

sy 2008, MKP) the

governmen

governmen gu

s,

Papers

policy instabilit principal y In mb

an , eements

was

practice

1 ag

provis constitutions

confirms 17

one. t

documen all herefo es

Slovakia e

ol attem

protection the en

ernment. when

ries, and

s

constitutions in signed andlangu formed igned the

#4,1999. t ia ions

of

to more

This

adoption

re in concerns of eds.Daftra the Transition

pt

y

rights

ts rights

be Central national t

andresurgence m

the on of

Slovak ts

gov.sk/9714/the- to and factor

inorit former

m two by claimed

i 19 detailsrelating

constructing

one nternational ag ight codif Democr ofm

of

of Hungar

e between

March of y tendencies and of rights

Pol

y

that protection

party the

the have has andGrin(Budap as

minor hasno y sovereignt w before inorit

itics Eastern

hich in

the

inS

minorit 1995 ati neither been two y

laws, been

in documents of

c 1998

ies. and ities constitut onl national was, ofnationalis lovakia,”

their

a

Ro Alliance

lex their and

Europe: one

the prevail states, legal 114

y

mania…,”

the ies;

more

y, s first,

living participationint

Slovakia with and official

i indeed, pecialis

Dzurinda mportance

of

ion- courts.

and, countries

est: (Gramma,

in

fram enshrined A

the Romania 2006

the in w

crucial.

of-the- of O

both New in hich

the

deter

S

in

ework an second, language m. Hungarians These status

. I,

Slovakia:

nor 2003),251.

Nat in I

s

1 countries slovak-republic.php

nte legislat

hould 16 cabinet. importan

2006)12.

unfortunatel

in in

on Slovakia, min ion-

r- treaties So

he

Romania

t

for and S which hem, 15

tate governments.

bui

not ing the

it

( September ion the

Art.6),

lding,

public 113

has creating Framewo

be

have ele

in however t several

step minor

the

protection regulating

dimin Secondly

w Romania

ments pla

has y, E the hen

parties thnicity

and use

in ye

iti ished.

w . rk 1996.

same have acts

and one d the the ere

es’

in

32 for of

at a ,

CEU eTD Collection practice in 125 administration andthecourts. 124 123 122 121 sovereignty 120 119 118 Critics nineties, tongue, judicial language “pre basis language principles there weakened ethnic to b rights to language ma y I Buček The

Adoptedin1991,revised “ Attila

Ro “ the t inta use the T National isdenied W servation he mania],

e, m areovershadowedb as were

rega

ining exercise

theSlovak fact loopholes Slovaks,

The The andthe the

2001,283;andDaftar inorit Benő, dee

procedure established well.

andterritor has (Art.34.2), rights were

rding

the

m by

minorit that Romanian minori no y in

constitutions,

educational

articles “N

of again

t

and that

con Nyelvi judicialproceeding he only simpl

In laws

ye rights

N relate granting and

R ties among

lvi ation

stitut the

y expression oman

( their (Chapter ial integrityoft priorit Art.127.2).

official

j after

the adopted ogok j language y of

have

ogok, by

— Roman to not Constitution ional in2003.Te C

citizens

not oftheSl

the Butiti right

the

learning all

provisions onsti too and

és y y

y imple

the however, nyelvpolitika &

the 4:33and34§.)define

status

language monol any

further minor provisions;

Gál

ian tutional Court.Seemore

far to to

cultural of right s also 1 of influence an in s 24

corresponds

me he education

2000,38. regulate a

y case xt:

(…) reaching

and e (Art.13) officia ovak The it SlovakRepublic na 122

lv ingual s

nt to y

ht pos tional

ha tated are

ed.

inwritten contains

reflect

tp://www.romania.org , provisions.

education

cit there

sználat use linguistic latter, ed. institutions sibilit

121 l that ofnational izens apart

generous

the minori sy

123 com

totheRomanianone their Bodó, in minorit

ste is “

R

—

and however, the y procedure the

provisions omániában” munications therights the from no

ms, Bearing inmindthepolit ty forms of native

ordi in

Barna

120

identit

it guaran minor

inKett new

special same y

territoria

for the and considers (

ism Art.34.1), the The rights scriminate

shallbeconducted

isRomani langua

w (Temesvár: ofminoritiesontheindiv moth recognizes minor y”

it teed ,

le asy /romania/constitution.html whichappears lim acts hich

y [Lang

latter and y

chapter

2003,251.

(Art.6) language by m migh l iting ge ( er according

Art.34.2.b). both

in it m

autonom

aga minori t ua

between

his y tongue i ‘guarantee’ et

the n ge 1993

t an. r Cons

Sz protection inst othercitizens

at

y were

dealing

for lead only

is rights

órván right

as 125

ical t

the ( totheActNo.335/1991. y

recognized, Art.34.2.a)

titut

and minori y inRomanian”

the (

rights andcul inthe . Art.32.3),

1994 to oral

criticized y, and

1

same 18 ion

to wi

The Slovakian: 1994

the 2007)

had

th

use

may use learn idual level. t These

approach

y preambl on

and

tural heritage

.

the assimil

loopholes of ti rights,

to

not ”

of (See

36. an me, (Art.34.3).

and

mother and by furthermore 1998 created governmental

the

(Art.127.1). the

th promising individual The

scholars. reaten the

the III/B.4), ation that

relating e

official but mo of

1

tongue 19 man Slovak

right state …”

and

also

ther due the the the the

33 of y

CEU eTD Collection 130 the minority there contact 129 128 127 For Eastern Europe Romania,” I conform the 126 mode Language continued, Slovak com Slovakian moth —had National of distance crucial however, Such analogues men ‘affir stván Act Daftar Csergő

The Act

the sovereignt preservation,

mu tioned, the er mat

No.270/1995ont l, III /B.2.State

Horváth

No. Romanian Slovakian wi launched nation;”

With At

nic y role t and emplo tongue

o

& Zsuzsa, th ive emerged

Party

in in

the 28/1990 languag

ation”

first as Gál2000,20. of authorities

and

and

nullifi Diversity in

Slovakia

, eds. ye action’ the the p and y the

rinciples

development

es

case (S the sight T andrequires return Const

the in beca that

a alk

onl e.

Ale of in NS)—during reelection

on Slovak Bíró

between campa ed

Thelaw see official

o

Slovak language

stat

nation-

order xandro y the itution onl me

the f theNation.L he

state in

andKovács or

the m

it inman official of

statelangua

y

administration

Action:

Official ore

has delicate

‘ethici ign i

equality ‘positive Republic n

Act

prohibi and

language

e.g.

to inS building Scacco, matt mun nationali the

an all of

ai

“ acts

y

expression language states of

zabómihály

support

med

Local furtherlegislativ icipalities

H zed’ L the impac official ers, Mečiar (Budap

an ted

loopholes and anguage ungarian ge 1990,

“From gu

t debate in ofthe discri

(Art.6.2) at

zing and he acts cul as ag Publ non- in

t

1995, bi

depriving e est:

on the 1

mina

docum a

of local where 30 the

andC of in

i of lingual d ic S the

2006,17;Buček mina m

process

LG iscrimination sort

identi

minor

lovak Republic.

of minori the ight the Management built developm

which the

“

process Uni ted self-gove

which I The

the

Books, t onflict i

tion’

S documents, he of

state, ty

ents tar lovak autu seem

y e it within in

the protecting

o t first

docum y

y ’historical was constituted y f provided

tobe

the to the languages mn

also 2001)253- and

n Romania

in rnment H “ Republic. of

ent

in bizarre as the

Act

ungarian

proven

persons of

2000,283;andDaftar

adoption the favor

politic rela

of

andtheuseof the publishedin

a ents.

applied of P

Multi-Ethnic

measures on

luralistic: means

bodies lines

1994, tion

at the

Slovak territoria

ju

andS

listed

the Minorities

255.

least belonging of as al alread

stice.’

to minor

democr

also

were of the w

officia

comp of minor

the

the lovakia,

20% t

ell. Fine-

aken

under

majorit another mu

bi

y 1 l

‘one weaken C other

Slovakian. not 28 it

anti-

lingual ommunities rights That in eti of could t

y tual ac Tuning l o iti by

required

( language of The

national tion. t y

es 1990

y minor he I t Romanian state tha minori y he &Gál

and understanding the

language

cit

use

Law population.

elite,

is w

ca: the Romanian

1 Act Minority 27

y here

when right CUP,2007)32.

it signs. their one

not

culture to

2000,22-23. 1

minor in provisions. y 29 t

on

y

The

as know defined

of

legislat

Central

citizens.”

minor

languag language’

ca

explicitl

the

to the Slovakia play

ities growing

P But mpaign Sta

Slovak

olicy use and of

State issue te

ed shall iti

even

ion, and

e and

the the

use for

34 its

126 es

I in in y a n

CEU eTD Collection 135 134 minority 133 Bakke 132 a the reduce 131 working out (Art.29); definition the first language onl the minor 1999 languages inspired confir public and governm of constituted presidentialvetoand Act E.g.:

Gi cre C provisions. In y y

ser use

werenotthe zella s

version

r, onP ubmi in the ation 1993 it med law The

gő “Growin adm languag y In

of

the

% ent, Sz in to 2007, rights, furthermore, ublic administrationwasthe

S Romania

of

tted in the

regulated abómihály by minor inistra

of by frontof 20% tate

thever provide autonomous

con of com seeing

ethnic

gove e g

50-53; sy

using rightsinSl an the I the

The

stitut the solation: of mbol it only munication tion

rnment y

OS

ind

the law Hungarians

the y

Slovak

i,

Slovakian

public the Act

languages Kálmán

details and

ion. act

some “A CE the is

onestargeting irect

it

admin population state

did P

international i not s

ovakia] (Gramma, authorizes announced led

n 1996restricted zlovákiai olit regulate, Report violationofS phrase

authorities

The

not

Constitutiona oftheprocesses(Art.58). of

Balla, ical restricted istrations. language

to toless with

state

andEthnicTensionsintheSlovak Republic,” these define

wide could previously

ActNo.69/1991. kisebbségi

in “New 1

“national local

31 plans

than

as

minorit language

spread 1996–97 The

further

theminor

discontent,

is rights—see

lovakia’s isregulated be the at anchored

20% in L the

authorities to 2009),18.

not an

all. government l perm

‘strait

p reor gu n

ies Court. more men dom la

ye

regulated ag

The mino

yi internationalcommitments.In acts all dis ganize lvi

claim itt e to ng it

tioned

estic Act

lim ed

y j

in of tried

co

ogi i

1 population providing mposed restricted Chapter b rities 33

tricts. reforms

or foreign

mm ing it’

at the in

y adminis körny

the

and

1

separatel by Sl Originall to

35 local of

rights unic The

that ovakia,” con

are LawonPublic m publications ez

the

were anthemsanddisplay foreign

a trative islead et Hunga III/C).

stitut

ate the ver of councils, the

duringMečiar m

áttekintése,” present relating

ul incorrect y, inorit

in y y

Minorities use

use timately ion

districts

rian

high

its official the

the their criticis

of

Thus

y of

the m

internation

Helsinki Monitor it of in acts fine population, minori

inorit to

Daftar mother carried

minori

A

[ on only

inform

general The m.

real Research

s the instead

dm

uffici in y a offorei should 1 status era.

32

legal reacted

y

north-

t case

inistrat gave use y u &Gál out t

tongue y se

ation The ent languages 134 al

interests languages environment i

1/1999;

n gn is

s of of

of from of

comm outh 1996

by have

an 2000,14. flags. numbers Slovakian

ion.

1/1998. anchored wa violation proposing m minori as

without unclear

inorit basis despite suring s which

This Edwin uni

been

later

(the and

35

in t t of to ” y y y

CEU eTD Collection 142 141 140 25/09/1995. S 139 138 No.350/1994. I 137 136 these State appl basic also discri changes Roman (Art.123) instruction: position language a b language, is and minor y

See Bilingual Government See For

medium the EP I not n

yi languages, pos

countries thenumber Slovakia m m

mina III /B.3.Legislation Resolu Language it constitutions ng sub

ian only y At ore ore Issues occured sible

group

of to —were

jects

certificat inS inKettley and emph tor

the

tion law

ource: of

Slovakian the : n Emerg

protection the

y to

zabómihály Act

Romania

primar

of

wa the

s, ofHunga instruction provisions had

No in

and

asized is wa Act). in histor

http: since taught education Iliescu sue No. es

s authorized Hungarian B4- enc 2003,253- vocational s 1997

ofthe hadbeen serve

y

//eur- s

y 1025/95 : ActNo.84/1995onEducation. bilingual 29/1984

harpl

y

ActNo152/1997. Although by and language they

rian i

against 2006,15;S in and

w

lex onminority regi countries, as scholars,

schoolsinSl H is hen secondary y

issuedsince

.europa.eu/ directl and 254.

a ungarian,

on

geograph on

criticized me—con

concerned. for education to toparticipa

basis an school

the

discri Pri moth wait pos s

econdar students zabóm Emerg y

mar

protection reappears

and for sessing influence

Le

ovakia until mina levels er education y 1921;t

documen y w tained

xUriServ/ ihál group and

even

hereas 1 of enc tongue had lex 37 y te 1999).

yi tion,

see graduating

Secondar s schools Romanian in of these y he 2009,14- both

In pecialis to

in b

Act 1995S some the inTable4. identit theforma minori in y tation

Le

136 be this but instruction

Slovakia

Roman

countries the xUriServ.do?uri=CE Furthermore protection rights, wa

y conducted

t (these tate

y y 16. context.

protection

restrictions regulate s Schoo and European

rights

forma adopted, from were La

tion the ia

to

ng ls,

all

rights provide

the

and

are ua

take tion.

ofthe

and H Hungarian to modified

furtherdetails.

These ge in the ungarian

only

1995 law—best 140

hu of Acthad the be Parlia

Slovakia s

entrance were but man regarding

urvival

Thus s

curriculu LEX:51995 identit

education

ubjects—except taught

two in basic

amend several rights men

abolished abolishedthi Roman

minor

the primar primar

y of

until exa t

rights ; only 139 i

n

right t ms. ing minor the IP

the

imes,

Romania, minat in it ian, (some 1025:EN:HTM expressing y y

y

142 1995

almost

H in

dual are language in to by schools

concerns

ungarian final

s provision. it

etc. ions

Romanian y

neither

education

the provided

the 141

relevant cultures OJ

role 138 version: all it

in

1995

state

C249 was The

the and

the the

L 36 of as of of of .

CEU eTD Collection 144 143 notices these other the signs Hungarian other marr Attila ová the can birth language because—as countr language and interrupted group minor Act Act y

name

be ending. external iage

adopted names

No.191/1994onDenomination ofCom No.300/1993onNamesand register III /

contexts hand at it

y which

identit

y In These officiall

( those joined

signs,

B.4.Legislation cere languages, rights related

of Romania

the nam during

can

the

s y.

a are These the (or

mon rights,

and localiti

— locality

y

condition—the inscriptions, es

wa only the

locali

such not These Registers registered internat acts.

y

mar of s March

ma acts

Council

developed.

onl

bewritten as es and on villages

t

as

y riage

y na

y On

where w

issues

the can

ional) failed be po

mes onofficial ell pos the and

Act

stal

the as conducted certifica

etc.) approved as be

sess of S

and and

2001

September the

the

urnames

countr

turned

to in as

services, pressure one the

written Europe. After

in

Slovakian.

satisf sy well, proportion topographical towns equivalen

right

hand useofnames,local mb Local m tes y

and munities inLa

inorit Slovakia, list up

in

y ol had : in w

during rubber

to

ActNo.154/1994onRegisters, was ic

the

according

hich the 1994;

these

in of the The Administra

y education, to function t

names Hungarian

Slovakia of minor

of muni

forbidden.

minori allowed

modern

accession

law stamps,

the the as for

the signs ng

cipa a

it s

ua the

to minori Moravčik

ma

Slovakian y t result regarded in y ge the

tion

ize

language, are were

lit when w y

language

na second ofNational

maps

preservation minor

omen ies

not

Names According influenced its

t

essential mes andtopographical Act y of

regulated.

where, population

be the legislation,

or

both it

Governmen

the

ti to ‘ y as

Karol’;

me,

nam u

not

in M Act nationalist be as sed; sures

u

internal

inSz inorities. addition regarding se

simi

co

beca

e registered the the to of its

of and

of mm

After

the and the

reaches abómihály

lar civil

both

internal me and H rivers minori t

on

onl ungarian

the political

to

Act use

a

to trend independent

1948

s adopt part. the

individual names y

the

without Slovak. a

plains,

protection

the at t on

of i

y

signs s 2006,17. legislat survival

143

upple

Slovakian least the

was

names

‘Károly bilingual bilingual

religious minor

changes

such O

use etc.—

1

the 44 n ment once 20%

ion,

and the the

it 37 in as of

of In of – y ’

CEU eTD Collection 149 148 147 146 Nádor nyelvpolitika 145 men Copenhagen minor legislat med concerning one than cultures according to television electron it—to nam change Regarding case, Szabó Act Act AttilaBenő M

contribute

tioned—see ia es

percent inorit favorable: and

No.254/1991onS No.255/1990onS III / it forthe the inthe receive

ion y In This mihál of

ic in Lá

y B.5.Legislation

standards

ProtectioninSl provided minor

regim to media. Kelet-Közép-Európában s

their continuall szló Szarka(Budap the um

andJánosPén printed yi section of mother

Hungarian the

minorit 2009,12.

to informat

ma

their u according

ms it e mother

se latter

the

y r as

y, In

to rights med of

basicall tonguecan reaches

of combined

y

the

y lovak Television, lovak Radio,amended promot

relation Slovakia

be

names ion the criterion. ovakia, with

the tek, ia tongue minorit Act

an

onpublic

for

to

and

television “N in est: y nineties,

influence the ion 20%.

one on

covers

minori EUMAP the ye Akadémia to and

[M airtim book beregistered

(Art.3.3 lvi and

y Names

process

public of medi wa

moth jogok

inorities, langua The surnames

media amended

ties.

national During the

report s realiz Romani e editing. in wa

a

of er to

Kiadó,2003)131- Romániában”

isolation

b from media, moni and

s rights—where

which

of

y

the tongue According minori obliged Act (

by Budapest:

ed democra 6.

149 a the

inofficial toring Copenhagen 1968 culture the No.335/1998.

t alread j).

started he ge in In alread

t 147

nineties y through of ActNo21/1996. policy

countr

Slovakia, to

Romania has [Lan

issues

report, Open In

Slovakia

tiza

y to broadcast of y

for1994.

141.

practice, been to documen inCentraland the

gu the

y tion, a minori S

ag

medi

it in

did develop criteria.

ociet supporting

number the former e

R wa the still the 2000.

and

during

ights y a, not

Slovakian s

ties progra In

circu

law

free

ts in television,

not stitute

according 148 inR (

law, change

of

Eastern The their force, Art.19).

(Art.5.2

on

mstan

and

the minori ms as There omania], in role , 2001)

the sured radio further

minorit media promoting unli M according Europe]eds.Orsol

ces an national wa

1

ečiar- and 45 t are 473. to and y

yt mit

and

s

by have

group hi

refine

the

K devoted no given in y ed

ng

isebbségek,

era—below 6.d), legislat

the

protection

printed

li European

radio

access been to after minori

mit men ju

law 1

46 which to stifies

ation

only

ion.

les t and had

ya the the

on 38 of or t to

y s

CEU eTD Collection 151 Ci 150 Slovakia beginning applica further shown inthe mediocritas European to standards close go went confusion migh the the behind ti can the me. Topidi2003, ted providethe Kontra far

governmen I m sy by be II /C.Direct

t

too inim

to ste

enough).” be providing It bothDaftar

tion The developed concluded,

Mik Topidi’s m

far seems

it validated differentl

um and Union

of

happened

for presented

lós, took between nextsection—it in 2.

mini 2000,

of

ts interethnic

EU granting

“English 150 from

y to

these

these seemed & up argument, i

mu

correspond within

y. mp mem The that for

Gál2000,21;andSzabóm wards however,

151

these during m, the legislative

act o

standards.

rights is Onl reason all

be language and the The

antagonism wording

to the y’ rship

other y— of f theEUo two

s

theminor name moved the

be majorit

C

EU to

four Regular ousin: as for

most

in ends. positioned,

cases, accession

environ

the rights),

l

the

this Kontra’s y accession 1995,

of ye

towardsthe y,

S internation that probably ,

lovak

acts n themi ars constitutions—are

satisfy it

dualit

i.e. Getting and Reports y

ment

and wi majorit

nor

ihál

to

the Onl and negotiat

migh claim shes to at y,

in period. yi the beco the

y, be Slovakian

not of

norit g 2006,15. least , ” from closer al ‘mini

y

neither t ho Acta official yo Hungarian , the

me liberal

comm and be ions. referring getthe wever, nd

y legislation

for

their

Li

countries

legiti mu the

a The to minori nguistica

uni

the

mem

the and accession multi m’ the generous Regarding

maxi

mere

content ma were countries

t

ending.

national y minori

only

accession datu Roman ber, and t te y cultur

Hungarica

accordingl

mu historical

perceive even

published m

its to

whereas

that t m negotiations and

y

alis ist of ian the

the

ofthese conditions submitt

( today who

(who enlarge period, m

the

lim governmen

State qualit 3-4/1995-1996,

explanat but the y

iting claim : guiding since for has

ed

claim the “ standards.The

same y Language [it]

men

on

Roman started

of their changed by intention ed at

1998.

ion, resulted

ed

t—as the

the

ts,

providing European the it principle

the official can did

43, wishes

acts ia au

at

same

Act,

it

and 348. law rea For not the the

of 39

be

in is it

CEU eTD Collection 155 154 153 2009) http: 152 groups. preparation the belonged Council Law adoption “[t]here have Slovakia One Dzurinda significant Mečiar as it the minor directl negotiat

L EPResolu ECReportonSlovakia1998, 7. was

Com well

ette accession //eur-

European

of III /C.1.Lawontheuseof on it

y r mission not

ofHCNMon4November y The A

these affected ofEurope. as ions government

lex

153

The

protection State

of

to

good cabinet l only the .europa.eu/

tion ontheSlovakRepublic, OJ y

and

‘strongest legislat

of the

lasted beenproble

steps, intention changed

negotiations Opinion growing

an Language

requirem due the examp the European

took Act

Slovakia

ion for claim European minori is Le to

(1994-1998),

on

xUriServ/

the voice’

the le

when finall seven

on on ethnic step

S ents

ed ms

to lovakia’a

case

by minor infringe Union. the on t

s—with y both y inthe

prove

wa protection

of ye Mečiar

1998t

the the Parlia was is

Le tensions U of

ars. the mino

it s under se xUriServ.do?uri=CE

by proved

basis Slovakia. y

High application men

treatm

realized The

had

the

o M.Dzurinda,or of

languages.” international

men

the This

the C32826October lost

rity

Minorit

t

importan between of

fact

thepressureof ofthesecountries been

European of t Comm desire

languages

ent

in section b its the

minor

y

in

that its In for ofminori

non-fulfillm

the its July y elect

1997 issioner

resolution

for

Membership

ce the Languages

the

it The

com details

reason LEX:51997DC2004:EN:NOT P y Com

Le

1999, ion rogra

of

EU

Hungarian inSlovakia rights. 1998,190. new

the tter mun same

ties

the mission

in of26Februar

mem

on

m

countr

ho government when for en

it

andlack within on

the 1

international linkage,

of y w 52 was

t N Declaration of

,

be

of

the the

the ational the a The

autu

s y rship—towards

national the and in the suggested

a

was

thenegotiations. European Slovak EU’

minority

the

result

mn

unstable ofprogres

law

politic y between Slovakian 1996toV.Mečiar.

explici s Minorities, 1998 indeed

of

on reaction. com

minor

of Republic, w

Union al

1998, ever the

condition

hich

the Regular (access

political tl

criteria,

mun enlarge intended y s concerning

iti use

elite

EU

since excluded normal

(COM/97/2004):

es

155 included and it

ed

This

of

y 1

integration and

54

during . Report or

on

men

situation,

however, has

the minor wa the

to iza 30

by stance ethnic

s t more

1995

from me tion.

April new

that the and

the the the it on 40 et y

CEU eTD Collection official langua 162 161 160 159 4.1); Art.5 158 minority an and meetings as distribute nex 157 156 was governm mak contradic the argued most In the that because me a regarding contact, being languages

Daftar SlovakiajoinedtheOECD Act marker

TheCom to interpreter The It addition t mb E.g.:

t the qualit

he to es provide m not guar

No.184/1999ont ge

impor

communication(art.7.1).

ership

ver the inorit

law use

languag The

s by

y the 1 It

the

main of official

anteed 57 & put refers ents

(art.7.2), tor

y the y state

of

declares

of provides mission wasdue t was reconfir the Gál2000,29and42-

he

internat

on of y tant short s y

provided i

y,

in a ‘Slovakia’s mple in everal simpl

population

local motiva

but

thatthe

reques languag m e

the t MK

language the

forms he (Art.3.3);todisp adopted the

other inorit concerns

but

with

me that

right: onl the adminis content—to P u

ms

y context

ional t other sed

b

cannot y of he at tion e, u nta IOs. all i

y y nformation

possibi local langua

se

some useof

the also the t onl to creates

he tion with ofM fields terms

tomeetinearl com ofthe

i

return

trative of submi act

doubts 159 n 2000,theNATO local

municipality are: y same

admin i

n lity

begratified. ge of

the

m nine alread

L more 49 the The a mu

as

iscourtproceedin

inority b

covered t

are the admini

1)

to la bodies

ensure minorit narrow

governm ; and po t about y written to

ime istration m

y

nit

repres law can mark w clauses—regulat i

that ssibilit

inority not Slovak Europe,’

nformation y

ell; Meijknecht2004,149- y problem i languag

t strative

gener existed considered

y

in

(Art.3.2); be

declares

J failed entatives streets

requests it Slovakia’s

precisel

majorit

y by uly a

bodies

2) langu

inagiven Sincethe y formul covers ent minority al in2004.

toreview national the

to

es. bodies

legal

that

to ati

inpub not and to provisions,

ag

Seemore

that

gs, the

to to are y state of y satisf

c; e draft

ated

to educationand re only

onl the

in 1 with defined,

local languag

the 62 the

in t

obliged u gulations

lic are fulfill hese keep

di es Sl

se

munic the

lawwasconceived legislation, y local a language

3) a spla

y

relating

adoption

ovakia’s

the

minori

the regarding admin the

formula the i

minorit

law bodies records/chronicl Slovak n Daftar as 151. that y e,

me 158

‘ and

to exception alsoinaminority

o which use

official if ipal in

Hungarian ther

as t nt istration

and y create

al

petitionrequesting state

a cultureare

the are

langua

the l

y s

as of of act tion minority it y

local present oon

National

& y

reintroduces its

languages;

the obliged

creates . the administration m

law

content. a great Gál2000,29. condition should of com

as

at inorit ge relation geo

of

public EU

es internationa meetings

m possible

a upon langua doe

regulated gr mu t

ina

of the to

inorit the

aphic

y Council. accession,

languag legal s

have

1

s nica the s

uccess,

use documents’ 61 request

languages

meeting

for to ge ru

and law not

inclusionint

al mun the

wi Daftar y

the and tion,

(Art.4.3);

uncertaint sh, other , by the been signs w

th

e though,

4)

bind

icipalit (Art.4.2). as—regardless 20% l

s is 156 (Art.2.6); separate 1

to the

and

tate 60 use agree expectations.

that however,

some

but

y get i

covered vague laws n (Art.2.3);to

assistance The

in

languag and of it

a threshold the

y to

an

and

toward

(Art.3.1); ML becam the he also official

ies m laws.

conduct

argue law— answer as

is inorit talks. Gál’s local

(Art.

not and well and law e not

in

by 41

as of in

e s y a

CEU eTD Collection http: viszonyai 166 165 164 163 institution use of Act Reports dating that from necessar concerning on nevertheless [regarding the law decided the integrat specified. ECReportonSlovakia2001, 23;andECReportonSlovakia2002,32 ECReportonSlovakia1999, 18and I

Act

the n

the ,

adoption the //www.felvidek.ma/index.php? Law

and of Presidency w

the III /

No.

hich

Hungarian

ground;” back There The EU—asresultofthe minor ion ,” onthe .

y

that

[Lan last since C.2.Otherlegislative 5/1999 The

orsy

[minorit of

re

Regular

the minorit

Notwithstanding

to of states sulted its 2003 it Slovakia—it gua

are Conclusions most

opening y

its

ste the

164 this (13 impl

imp ge

languages s entrance

m adoption: and the

y

Report ome J

that new y accession in

importan anuar lem

offinesin Reports em languages]

nationalrelationsinS 2001 the protection],

ofaccessiontalks othera en “there en language y , Helsinki,10-11December

,

restoration tat 1999). tat

examin

and

might,

and overruled

lack ion the ion t of

opt

period, of these remains mendm thecase

the changesrelating

the

See

ion=com_content 2002

Report of 70 lagged legislation.” the ofpolitical law

ations. ”

ho

language

; and Comm more

the

m of wever, the problems,

Reports

in none

en

relates paragraph

a

E

oftheviolation

Law; the behind. from in

ts

1 lovakia] gap J C Report 66 inDecemb 2000 une ission ofminori Szabó

bilingual

of

be will—gave is Furthermore,

165

between

to 1999

and sue refer 1999. also &task=vie the

b 1999(point10). mihál

the

Report the also u onS

y The The

10

m, Ágnes is se later

considered to

claims

t yi modif school

not ofminority

er y most lovakia

A reflected ho of

following

fact language a 2006, polic 1999. fter

w&id=10431 ofthe

wever,

“limi on upfurther Biró even

the talks

ica the

that

obvious 2000,22.

its “that y to 15;

(accessed documen State

163

tion ted

formul approval, provisions. annotated

approval

“the as

that

and

were this

about related

languagesinSlovakia are

98. continued availabili

an of

& in

Language stres

the

need

It

the powerful ation anteceden consequence

on the “ emid included tation Szlovákia

univocal further actsworthmen

of

the 1 May

Reports sing in 1995

=1 for and

the t it

y and

efforts . European ontheseissues.

obviously of 2009)

adopting

Act

1999

nyelvi, State tune

imp in t—is

the

progre concrete

success comm

the lem

relating of

possibilit are

disappears Act

Language definite nemzetiségi

Council Regular en ss, the

en tioning needed further proves

on

of tat data” ts

and EU ion

the the the 42 on l y y

CEU eTD Collection 173 172 171 170 radio sta 169 language. the 168 legislative 167 ter technica the result two the com support Hungarian coverage want cannot broadcast language, (Art.5.4 broadcasting Act ThirdistheOrdinance Szabó

Act Article minolog Act

“

sta Broadcasting

accession curricula mu are

No.215/2001onP

to III /C.3.Legislative

No. te No. of

The The The mihál tion/television channel nit

broadcast

168

“ change l

related framewo language. 11 from onSlovak the

16/2004

465/2003

) y education in

and

y

came Sely

(1/b/i no legislat Regular

), yi last

is changes

Slovakian

andthe in 2006,13.

period,

regional provided

the

s of e

this,

the rk: uch elem and significant on

true.

onestablish János Other regional live

ion ht

S television

state u

1/c/i)

lovak Reports

tp://www.slovakia.culturalprofiles.net/?id=-13161 since No83/1999reg programs se entar (both

some establishm ublic Adminis

which Thelanguage

programs

on

languages at radio Universit of

henceforward, Television of

or changesrelating

budget,

Radio i y

another

it

minori n the concessions

the

w ing local

measure

minorit

has i on

ere mproved isaround0,05%and or

the Charter

regiona can

Romania

ent not and s

television in may 171 tration. y

t tations, provided

Sely y

arding

time. and

in y ofa

the

onl languages.

com with

ofinstruction

Television

states within be e school, Komárno l orminoritylanguages Act

J Seemore

the

y therestitutionofproperties

were

ho

ános minori private radio used

mi

No This

be m

wever, t which u

developm hat tt station ention

in Universit

se

the ed

619

broadcast mad before stat the

“ t ofminority effective 172 y

i to the Hungarianuniversit

to

/2003 in was n Kettle ions accession

language. encourage e u according

a

the

isHungarian, onradiois4%. The se three

2003 can for moth a

y

on and long ent also inKomárno.

of par

given

the y Slovak l first broadcast by

2003,255-257. y

radio law ticular minori er of as

modifi

”.

me languagesinRomania

desired H and

period regional

minorit a

tongue, to s

is ungarian article

It

ans

Radio. public f or /or the

acilit

belonging

(acc the program t seems

y ed.

govern Slovakand facilita

that

exclusivel

essed language

Law 170 ies Education was

y 167 drea of

y

More

stations with institution

protection, in

is

com local

ECRML. that on

on

The te

tot is m ment performed, the Romania.

t on

he 18 May the b

mu

bilingual he

roadcast of Slovakia minori

television foundation t y in creation his: English.

nationalm

nit ordinances if

Act,

in State the vocationa

169 with

‘Broadc ies they 2009).

out

the i

1

t n

73 where y

Hungarian

Hungarian in relating at

princip Language

of technical language financial does minor

are least inorities. the stations asting—

of w

l

from

hich

sta also as

le,in

and one not the it

43 to

te y a

CEU eTD Collection 177 take 2001 - 176 175 Marko Integration 174 presentation men develop still adoption further the minor local use modif at inform language In minor ti i n mes Horváth In

Amendments The spi official these least

off waiting of

t Finland -meanwhile

te

andAntonijaPetričušič, III /

or it ica it authorities. within e al ation minor

xample y y Be In The of effect men

l the

tion alterat & one-third language

constitutes

admin C.4.In was

the yo Roman and in docum Scacco amunicipali

(seemore second b ts—as issignificant

of nd

it m the

of

ilingual comm

No. 215/2001 of of finall y its

issing

ion general the

istrativ

languages the Élesd

the stitutiona the accession E

ia 2001,262-266(Article

ents

ffects number

in

stated of

y

The wa of uni signs;however,

Law legislation- a

at

minority

postponed

legislativ

oral i t institutions further

inChapter s ofthe

e

s y cat least interest, the

worth isbil

on the

units ambigui

in

in b of and L ion and EURACResearch.

l

even y changeswithin Minor

process.

me

2006 Hungari ordertoadequatel Law

ingual 20%

minori Hughes

ment

success authori condition written with e the aw mb

and

ity in as

t 175

develop IV/B.1).

ioning: on reduces i if y— No 286/2006. ers

are

t costmuch act ans front

a

Pro atleast8%or

1 of zed t

use local 74

y Public result

as and 90.5).

muni

forms not of of tection decr the

provides

According

the

—could

The of

of it

the ments,

Sa

the this

eased directl

(Bolzano:European population authorities, outp

the

minor

appeared of that cipal Hung

Administra sse—are m

b i EU

n See y the number council lacement accessionperiod ore,

y

3,000peoplespeak under

j South

public demonstrat

udicial have bilingual arian iti y

it m enlargem

the andnobod

s y es to connected ore ophisticat

language

canbe

20%-

population Easter- the in the the

been

i

second

of to n: institutions belong publication tion,

procedure—returns

the the C

one- 2001 institut

u

t onstantin, Sergiu. sign ent he se

y

the Europe, Academ

preparedonl e reall b

which ed

the Constitution ilingual

ma

of fifth, to

during

proces s major

reach act

to so

diplo thelocalminority yo y ional mother language effects and wanted

r

called the

that in

y, eds. furthermore

ed wa was in signs.

2008)139-

mac

local s—or

notices,

munic

changes. 25%

group s

minor minor are

forced

E totakethemdown. ofthe modif tongue

mma

y y Minority “Romania,” After

inRomani

, rights i relating council

subordinated

n

in ipal and here

1995,

it it

b

of

La ied u condition y other 165. the y y

languag

se

ities

is

authorized

its ntschner,

The the

as languages

even group.

‘me

mod

actuall

permitted and

of me Act,

adoption in the Prefecture

well,

words where establish-

asurable’

ification an.

etings, m the

European e. s

use o inorit

whose

177

. y

to J may

since

oseph their

The

two

the the

the the . 44

of 176

of or is to in if y

CEU eTD Collection 179 178 Europe the ting asses lacked however, confir impr representativ further during Minorities Slovakia Offices Comba Institute (1998), their or Col Col

countries, comm thismist essive. sm lection lection problems III / med

more ting the Be The Roman

‘clear ent (2003) the since

For

it

C.5.Evaluation not yo established

te madeoutofallthe madeoutofallthe and

Dzurinda

in

Discrimin without Interm improve This

es nd

es ake

Stud buttoa

the

necessaril its 1993, ia—with bench

ofall

Regional and in in the the

final is—without yi Government the order inister

European

the ng next

further me marks,’

them and cabinet, much

ation

administr

the the in nts reports, National y

to ial

s Developm

of j a the

ust

hort

inorit ‘Regular ‘Regular Problems

in (2002),

post develop general lesserextent. evaluations, Sub-Comm theCouncil

and

period Union the the before doubts—thanks sectionisinspired

ation that

ies, Council Authorit

of Com countries acknowledged

Reports Reports

the ent

wasre as

the

: the between the Deputy

of

accession sumpt

the

mi Roma (1999) it

National ofEurope Council representation it

te countries y tt Thecountries

onS onR for

Interm

ee e structured migh for

ion both

for

countr for

Prime 1998

lovakia’s omania’s w National the to

in t ho

the Roma

inisteri

of

on toexpose Human likel only Minorities

the

Restitution Europe.

meet belonged and

Europe

y

CoE legislat asanadvisory

Minister Progress offices Progress y EU

(1999),

the of

al 2006—established re havebeen

and the

Rights

main has integration. Com

national

aslightl existence also ive Since

(2000), minority within to Towards

Towards of Ethnic

tried

mi the for and one-sided.

the

affected and Properties

tte the

me

National

bod and Hungarian Human y to on the

e

the Accession.’

different National Accession.’

of

Minorities, for mb requirements

monitor influence

institutiona The National y ethnic

National the ofgovernmen forma

ers

National

several

(2005);

To

Comm Office inthe Rights, polic

opinion.

Minorities, ing Coalition avoid l minor

Emp measures the

y

Council l mechan Council

which

institutions 178

ission

Minorities for mak , levels

iti

minor National this comm lo w

es Roma, t. hereas y ing

Part m 179

also was

and

ism and has

en are for

of it

45 its it of y y - t

CEU eTD Collection 185 184 183 182 181 —presented I 180 tation Concerning use adm reco to related on which the report 2008—and Minority obliged started and Roman protection, I I ACOpinions2001and2005, Article ACOpinion2005,Article ACOpinion2005,Article 1 Constantin2008,148.

/ I

B. access

n the st

Charter’s

Opinionon inistra mm

4. of as Slovakia and

might )

was pointsofthe

states

ia The The was

in a languages end to

to signed Languages result ascondition—wasfinall

1999. tion

for reduction

s

submi as

and

in ubmi Opinions documen med that

the hamper the ratific

are a

Romania 2001 result once

adoption

manag

the indication ia, stricter sufficient t the

tted

So

the

with ation—unfor

and

threereports

of b mon the

this

Fra

ts

far b y wa on adoptedon6April2001,2

third CoE-pressure, ed y

provided Slovakia of 10ofFCNM—points128,129. 9ofFCNM-

that of tensions

prospectoffurther than

mework s Slovakia itoring adm has Romania, two

attent to the

also

of state

H

onl

inistra that entered acts

mon ungarians place y

signed postponed,and

ion y tunate

of

iscalling 11ofFCNM—points134. reports

(entr Convention in on

of

so itoring

with

po 1 which whereas

tive has

82 the

the official the

names

far. int 116. into among y l

y

first

to

countries partial

in accession EU. comp authoriti

have these

The

cy

force,

appear in to be force use

develop

both

cl b the

nd t modulat The

others, on paid

y

han a es OpiniononRo of selected

da l

y

success. prominent case

Roman

with in then names, National es ys. in forgotten.

opinions have

b introduction to period

y

2002)

practice,

ments. of

and

welcome the

The the

further e

the

Romania

been provisions the ia local 180

imp

first

alread

A

See b

European but in

Minorities 181 call s

presence y mania dvisor

Later

names

o far comple

185 le

the 1995—ho moreinChapter

steps

in

and me the of the concerning for y adopted

the FC developed

existing

the y nta first in

and of

right more

are foremost

Comm

ted,

NM

in Charter

tion latter 1995, the

most (entry topographic adopt

the wever on25November needed

of and of states—as Advisory effective domest

ion

it

med case impor national minori IV/ the both

picture. te

in

the on

before of e ratified

B.1. ia.

force

to

al Law

onl of the

Regional tant Slovakia countries

1 ic signs

t improve 83

y imp

Comm y the Minority

fulfill standards,

minori on

education

in Still one language courts. 2005.

lem onl (Chapter

FCN public 1998),

me

state

it y the and en

and

ties the Act are tee

46 M 184 nt in t- y

CEU eTD Collection 194 Europe 193 192 191 190 189 188 the larg their Jews, reco 187 186 two changeable of Additionall mul judicial legislat full languages receive (e.g. which source print Opinion should the Kalligram ACOpinion2000,16. 1 ACOpinion2005,poin ACOpinions2001and2005,Article ACOpinion2001,Article ACOpin

See

The st all y gnized general

tie Opinionon tradit unfortunatel

the L medi

s impl

er thnic more

ippovan-

ma ion these for The tandards inSlovakia,Romania andBulgaria procedures. Csángó also partof and ask

ional li

are

y ion 2000,points34and35.

mit

a with em Report2003,1-2cited

li

y has i

state

admin

n Opinion s also give

mi compon be impar

for Albanians,

it langu rights Anna ed en t

Ru Slovakia

M hem speak tat

must to

official included tat

ssians, minor y

inorit minor budget rise ion.

fortheadoption

istrat ag

t be depends ion K.

1 e inform 93

ent in

on be

y 191 Meijknecht, is adopted reinforced,

t 206. to

Armenians, Regarding iti

it

Po ive

still does an

authorities

Romanian.More

practice, 14ofFCNM—points167.

y emphasi should

Slovakia es,

of negative The les, in

o borders coverage

ation

ld on

the

ho no the needs

on22September Roma,

Hunga Opinion

by t the wever,

be

form

core Minori personal Mei zed, Bulgarians,

and 3ofFCNM—points18and 190

minor and

which

and ofthe consequences benevolence

increased rian the

Serbs, to in also jknecht

a ideas

that curriculum

ty

further

on the on

dialect—can radio modifi finds be separate

it pro

D

recognizes

depends

Slovaks, y ht

the

scope a

State 2004148-149.

education Croats ensured, tection, raft tp://www.dri.gov.ro/

in 2000. 20%

that and ( (e.g.:

concentrat cat

crucial The minori

Lawonthe

recog of

ions

Language

of

for and television, Hague:

the

threshold Tartars,

w not s

the on tandards on

as the

nized

Slovenes,

the persons its

t be Act

of

critiques y the textbooks) Slovakian the highly

l

Framework; T.M.

languages the isted

ion resp.point25. increasing unclear

idea Turks national is

StatusofMinorities.

and result

Act

is

of 1999 lacking

and . C. Asser

clearl

Germans, belonging

of required

minor recom

reality: and

were appears

introducing

186

lim authorities.

y m position Law of ).

Ukrainians). under inorit

1 and

Press,2004) support ita 188 92

clarit me

it formul population

imp

Greeks,

y tions

were

for and Concerning y

populations. nded the

the to in lementation

y group

the

within national ever Csángó

Hungarian

and

ated finall 194 for on welcomed,

mu

Hungarians,

by

C

C imple

sángós—how the A 189 y in legal electron

hapter lti

in

y censuses, s the

context

R

cultura

the at o

freedom the

minorit omania relation the f minorit

me

catego

The Council least Opinion. 11. certaint

nt

second Slovak It ic u but alians, se ation

l

as and

r first and ever one

y y (the

ies

47 on its

187 of

to to as of y a

CEU eTD Collection (RMDSZ) with 197 196 195 facts II/C) li reached countries of the Representativ transition demo visibilit Slovakia—be legislat actual minor Roman Com the third mit See Topid

I 20%,thesepersonsbelong

the nte

European t ed

he mi w m in crac of l it rviews y

ion ia,

ho clai y Topidi This This following

ore tt y i 2003,3.

due European

effects ever the from

contributed ee

protection

indeed, y

inTable w and

context.” , on

tothe ould Opinions H y were as rather third Ro

y

es

Parliam m ungarian

case. minor on

also degree

w on that

ME mania.

of completed ell d

not solved 3.

section

integration minority

m

brief

Ps:

goe Hungarian 196

of

doubts—co the it F as to

inorit

ent,

have y urther

Edit proves

the

s of the com the

languages

introduction Reports itsall The further,

of

in Baue y

Copenhagen between

EU’s condition general developed develop

mun

more legislat Brus the

that acknowledgem totheco

r (to minori parties

mplies

(MKP) it

thesis

were drafted

and sels. contribution y

the

30 the it

in minor ment ion. lives th

would cannot of states facts

Slovakia t

of

and

y

in from basicall The

EU, mm

Criteria, with related

the

March—3

in

The of it such Árpád

y y that:

uni

most that municip

CoE legislation beconsidered be Slovakia

all protection ent

ass Topidi’s

same y t

to

y

obligations a

and Duka-

share too

firstly EU’s can is

or

rd

impor

degree of uccess stories, or

the

intended of

in Romania. is ali

optimist noten

Zól

this April

O

the

other and contribution, ties, that argued

stabiliza

SCE) tant yo on framework, statem

as

as mi

statem

i

Romania, asperfectl andduties n the the

jo

where sumpt recom

word to

it ic (MKP) the

y

the

ent

by the has

introduce critical protection to tion The

w European ent s

ion,

Hughes

me

rights. state

minor

this hich the from that happened.

however, and

exa of

nda wa working

beforethe

y

that mino tune didnot number

co

S mple

that s the

it it

more tions lovakia, Parliament ho 195

y

mplet of

and reinforced without

“

w rity towards

protection demonstr

rule the

minor

of

finall the

of reflect precisel

as Sas

does

Still, conditional ed.

and

accession. Romani Slovakia

the

Members condition of

se in

the

iti 1 y Csaba

97

countries’

not Advisory Brussels—

es the had the (Chapter law ates

also y process

of

in to

a

reach

pure Sógor level

only

and and and

the ity the the the

b 48 of of y ,

CEU eTD Collection the extent 198 accession, begun provision standards provisions the in. far respectivel is more minor be —all lack of secondly minor

EP

minori m

have a F

of

rom any main resolution prove it it

in

y y A ontheexisting fulfill ofRomania

becom

is

t the

problems that longer, that on compl whennoEUprovisionswereinforce y appears,

y

sues

of concern

that protection

on minorit third me

the

very on the

e

an 1 ete nt

as

the full st

and Resolutions

's readiness

y

chapter

of

EU l of mo result because,

disappear y accession longer. y

for

mem

Januar as such new 198 protection. me effects,

Treaties.

— a enlargem

nt

of

bers

result

and were situation

conditions

f

the

y the Hence of or accession a

of s 2007, from

andlessonits Romania in m

conditions

introduced lack

the simp of

aps

the

ent, The

the This the

the

in arose European the of European l

y

could and

last t ‘advance totheEuropean the

o li politic

ignored Regular

situation mited the is

s

on section case

the

in uch

European the not limi

1 al the

Parliam

effects. Union; EU

st relating

as men

of

ver by

hamper will Reports

of tedness.

of

Chapter the of

Romania.

y

other wa

t,’ Ma

Union

language Union

the the

mo

mino

ent—c

s they the

y

to H

not

or

thesis me

minori

EU owever as

2004,

minori (P6_TA(2006)0512)

(P6_TA(2005)0531). mem

rity II/A, postpone finall nt

the willing

lai

institutions,

The

rights

w will condition mi bers

t

in y closer hen y the

t in

ng

y condition

two cro

the protection.

continue

our ‘only further

in

European to the the ssed

candidate

case the

to stress context

are countries’

’

proble and

the the have countries

and

steps

of simpl not the

thirdly line, or

accession,

EP U Slovakia,

m the to investigation

applicable

nion countries addres

y on resolution

follow

of

they accession ceased emphasis

after the

that double has

s

were field

and and

the the the the

no 49 so on to to

CEU eTD Collection 2005) lingui hindered minorit 200 EU 199 on of nonetheless, favor is in where points, research an these Hungarian introduction language I V

explicab y The

this d the . the E.g.:“

IV

irective of T stic po

oftheuseminor IV

issues

ies,

last

/A.Slovakia Fico h the

section one the The Accordingl int 142.

and

/A.1.Modificat by Pursue

e righ on

includ m

rights

the

investigation le S prior undue odification—since

minor hand,

governm ts every

do which i

State de there b t

useofminority

availab

y u the ing

served t

not he

a

the detail

interpretation it from and

t

in

single research

y y i are effor create

Language

o

intend fact le the in this ent

n to

ed

the

to a ts

Slovakia, 2004

fields

o

ion

was

that the from

it couple case, contexts. persons

chapter f already

tension, y critique

languag the to of is languages M

“p

s

none of followed

(Slovakia), carried

thestate of stage detail 2006 i consequentl Act romot

n culture

belonging of the

o made and moni

es

but of r

of i

recentl U

hadtobepermittedinsomeinformations ntroduced has 1995 i

referred

ion

all t

the

nfortunatel out

the much and y since only tors by to languageact

the L of

been

before

State

case

t Advisory complete education, the o and y y a

the the Slovak

thecountries nat n

less, the emerging circums in to

g

use L

b

ional chapter

modified from ones anguage

minor u

y the introduced presentations y

a

but

case.

of there

the g

culture and “need

Com minor e

that tances. isunderreconsideration

minor

2007 it some

I

I legislat

R

y conflicts I

Law;

ensure /C The w

mi ities;” i relate language have

four .2—h g as

of

in it tt h laws in

(Romania).

y consider

reason ive no ee

t protection

In

the tha

focus s

Romani

appen languages j in

to

tim

even

ti

oined the A framework t between contrast or

me 2 mixed achieve use

f nd es

legislation

ed t

acts

behind

s

easing Opinion

e and hortl

in

of r in a. since

yst

2005. ments have

of E 2006, regions” minor

in frame EU. This to the A ems

y

U

perta

restrict

the this

s

on

different on - the

1995, (e.g. been when A majorit

in 2 indicated

and 00

it chapter the state ining

S

anal c

y to th lovakia third

ions

c

trade The is on languages

e realize problem pursuant 1 amended situation

99

field yt s

language”

to y

the as s

contexts,

ic register). program

the chapter, i

collects and (26

nat o

al regards

are in other. n

field ional s

to

May ati

hift act, the the

not

50 of in in an c

CEU eTD Collection 204 2009- Com are EUR to approached added Commemorative which languages represents other minority population authori that, considerably 203 202 201 tendencies situation critic given returned However, details minor pragm approved submit reinforce the among In

Slovakiaoverview: See

the Biró “ that

exempt.” 1)

m mission

100 among 3369+0+DOC+XML

cases ized

footnoteno.2. inscript

makes

issing i it 2009. ties, T ati n

up ted

y y The he others

languages see and lettering

ea

c”

into

infirstreading. is

a comp

of belong

number

the only

with heal to b the

to r

other

are

serious greater permitted

it

on

y ions EUR and

Ci

the footnote). Slovak institution

i language

ssue practically

the

the

ted th

use the very the sign

i 4 f lain

generall

must governm t the of t

t doe 5 o

insurance hings, of he

may May from Parliam

a

politics

s

000. than intrus most a

of

the M

http:

ins

bind

must patient fact about

s national only entrance be

governm RG

be

titut

state

not

same

2009. N the 2

+V i is //www.minorit

ing rights 03 imposs ion t made y

of ot

impor used

be that

if w

ions l ent

ent.

0//EN

aid unfavorable

parliamentar in

even proves of affect

il o opinion.

its

the penalties. in wri r s l

language The fices

minority.

ize

http:

to at not — the on adopted down ible where the its

In ent tten program reall tant to

&lan people

ly one’s the or apparentl

client

//www.europa

be

and minori countr truth March

for pronounced in

the

that

in T smal

by

clai y pr gu the imperfe

possib his yr

l

anything o ocalities the

ivate 2) 201 y carrying ag

restrictive

social

Law ig wn

does

by

a

EU.

sta ler

ms, is provision

the written for

e= hts.org/3533/slovakia/slovakia In

lies y t documen

sta

y immediately 2009

te expens At le

y

EN

(paragraph all personal sphere N

report

not

te Slovakian

pluralis rights, language ction o to security

that

not

(acc

the

most t rl.europ where This 184/1999 out language,

o the

question use speak

role

e.

it be

appl

in essed

t

end notion and

the

heir 5) of was

t

2 a citizens

broadcast in

communication 02

m. increasing the

explaining

probabl

a ies of offices

The a.eu/sides/ minori is t

broadcast the 5(7

he

however is on20 professiona

of

2006,

“aim

po

t

Co ‘one of adopted propo language

retroactively o

and

state absurd. The ))

draft

be sitive State on 2008 ll. , Edit

ty

but even

Ma an

in used on

y

2

in state, rtion language

l 04 the of new la anguage

getDoc.do?pubRef=-

Bauer y

inscrip

i the

o

all

the

in

w n Language

2009) the

3) the nationalis

the ther undeniabl direction i l

in by

the

n

the u lays w

business,

of

and

Slovak use version Public between se

aspects of - ith one

localit

w

overview.html#gov

alread need representatives the

t languages

ficial (MEP), ith tion he s

amend

tate

down of (paragraph in social o the

f

language’ minori no

governmen

off minority ies

i

Minis minorit radio —

contacts n for language

m, such y y

debate

l Act icial

imit of str

of another

i and

since w me mposed modifi

these m

ict modif ty here

(paragraph try which

the

ever as broadcasting

ight of

w

contacts nt

i health

/ penalties s

7(4)

languages, /EP y

as doctors o

(paragraph

t

over ime, on State

f over

nation- i notion l is yd languages n

ed

two anguage ica

Cultu t //TEXT+WQ+P- t nomin ). influence

of ernan

o

the

- and

the wa a

This natural care and

tion, the 20 law,

y

20

w H

and Language

5(1) same s re of

opinions. ith life, ce

ungarian

%,

act

building

% in European was

addi

proposal ated w meaning alread in

between . must

may

3(1) (b which where nur certain

orkers, and

of

April

have

o form,

) tions

was ) (for ther and

ses, not

. the

)

the

by 51

be be

4) i i y n s

CEU eTD Collection http: and tex 208 ECRML, 207 (acc such Education, 206 authorities towithdraw 205 written force. to Furthermor language vocationa central Anal s was b expressed its associations have answer proble most Act yst y

tbooks, J Research See the allt Jan “OSCE án essed

//ujs em

underpins

ys inspired,

been

IV /A.2. 2

probably Fúz a ms 07 m he izat , minor ts Mikolaj

The zo.com/online/ko

Education,” to b

12May ore

but

topographical

however, y ik, clai

who has l In deep

ion of

Bauer). media

slightl blog

Slovakian

e,

schools in Law

, the as March

criticis it

m

the such

decreased,

stated: despite

Education y “Comments and

or

2009).

this a P of form

that will

mess

schools

resident

on freedom

y ‘b

are Hungarian at the by

control. as different.

i

yp

If

„

as

2009 Education .“ m

instead t,” financed

namesinthetex László with Do least

the not

Po

former zelet/2008/10/15 roduct’ sumpt Hungarians, e.g. it thatthe inP

litical

not of http:

had

thus andthe Slovak for repres on

and

the ress the Hungarian the how

Pék(2009), 2 search

06

//perg

ion. of b t

happened

he the

Econom Still,

y minori promises Release:

the

National Minister it

entative newact

cannot O One t wa

‘mor

he

2nd it

also SCE National

ceu.blo ‘textbook- beginning

status

for

s The

Hunga 208 other wa tbooks are

also S /mag e

of t y

l y tate thePresidentof

iberal

re

from

s http: freedom Se Research Representative sa

sa

instruction

endangersthe EU

gspot.com/2008/08/reformin these as stricted

within the of rian actuall ys of

lf- y

a y internation Report a

mended—in

//www.osce.or

Part

Government

ro

an

Education

education S values

an the in Minister

S inS issues’ rsza lovakian of

tate,

b

yt

internal y— turn

the Group y yp

publication of the gon- hi lovak. the of

its i interpreted, roducts

ng n

b

choice’ — the accession

the y nem-hibridek- th content school u al

draft

(accessed has of se as is

the

against in

freedom of

removed Slovak

g/item/29364.html iti of

institutions

Association ofHunga

politica reform,

CEU. number of the a the ated

Slovak

not F

is

Press

result is

or reedo

the

ye order S

mo

controlled that

lovaks

Republic

The period, b provided more 14March

ar Slovakia, to I

y l ofmedia,

Hungarian ther openly g-

a- Act two

m

is the

2008, government of of

reform author in tankony s list , lovak- sue

in bey

of

autonom

tongue curbs the elem Ministry

popular classes

the

on b

Hunga and

s (acc 2009): the

ay, y of

on the

since quotes primar

ve missing t

the and

he forexampl

EU’s entar

the rian d

edi I

Slovakia essed k announced

Media,

language

necessar . think r

Slovak has H y,

I torial

y

Teach

mplementation

in

history y- ungarian Slovak will in the

of

even y said

it 14May

and- approach

been

t

2008. the Education schools hat provided

co

new

self-gove

autonomy

ers have that the consider secondar

mpeten y

(e.g.

we

in e. inSlovakia.

weakened. Hungarian

textbooks,

2009) education textbooks

Mini

that

205 the

minorit are act The

schools. alread

and

w in rnment

Slovak

ster

y. , of not more

from ce is ould

lead

html law asks

the the

t 52 —

in in he in of y y

CEU eTD Collection also depending now 212 211 210 209 undisputable—argued teaching, 2009, growing did victor publishing wording Slovak nam “deep-rooted parlia dissatisfaction established erased Hungarian be though, (Art.12) Slovak Septe

Pék,2009. Minority Report

Minori ht notintroduce solved.

t e tp://www.panorama.sk/ he

mber me

y in Mikolaj

’

The and teaching

National

peers.

the

ty ntar of brackets. and of impor

and Report

third

the topographical the the the practic other replaced

ontheminori

y

As the

2 geographical to

debate 09

tanc Hungarian of directed act these Hungarian —Monthly textbooks

—Mon

recentl

order

an

Language This a Party the ‘textbook 2 11

e

is e result

y

and

S

of

novelt s The again the lovak

books

thl olel

ne idea

by

plans state y

go/news/ne the t y was y

BulletinontheHungari w emerg

BulletinontheHung

final

community proble y

pupils names of

with

minor languag

the

uncertain, Slovakian Charter nam is y minor contravenes

with

were language, . widely sue’ an to

compro

authors

ed es” bilingua m

bring

it

will ordinance ws.asp? names e

in it

y idea related

seems

was sent y

.

(

can S actuall Art.8).

textbooks refuted

nurseries

learn ource:

which children’s mi

the oftheMinister onl

affects

lang

l of back be in the

se

the to y

names

is

y

E-

arian

from

optional, =sk&sv

the K proposal,

published

attached

be

sue b

This gives an onl provisions u mai

ontra’s y

to

se

the Com

to C solved was the Slovakian

y l interview

to

the books ommuni

of is

the

proble =2&id introduce

set Hungarian possibilit

and

munity the ethnic

geographical indeed same—bu re

to adopted book—that

Minister back ofEducation, stricted

in but

the =20661 instead Constitution

t m of y the inS Hungarian, withS

inSl

materials

Hungarian unfortunatel language.

is

some both y still a

lovakia, I

new still

for nur

ovakia, new in t

(acc

and of

zabómihály of translated—t

in

February ser

the abuse,

nam

of

waiting essed the

used the

Education

Education. me these al

waiting. y Is 210 most the

ssu

followed Framework s Hungarian

es

sue schools

thod

Court; chools y

b learning on e

y

and This 2and3- in earlier only

2-2009. i

Gi the

names probably

for 30

2009,

textbook, for

zella, Ma

the extbooks nurser

April

and on a furthermor wa Act

This also.

b

state

solution,

practices, 2009.

A realiz of

y s ones. paper, were say

y

as Convention fter 2009). against the the

due schools

‘s y the

s In

language 2009. a seems

ym

ation

that

2 as

sign Slovak a 12 simp use

March

tothe as

state-

e bo Up even their

long

It

and was the the

the the

li 53

of of of to l is to y c

CEU eTD Collection 219 218 217 case nationalism 216 215 214 213 ever Hungarian surroundings short med is Pátria voice standards. Februar High Slovakian repartit availab state force ‘second language

See The Kontra, http: http: Slovakia ht E.g.: of ium tp://www.bumm.sk y

inthisjuvenile m relating

Pet IV Com financial MalinaHedvig,

//www.osce.or //www.felvidek.ma/index.php? district, Rádió wave

ion. le The The ore t y

/A.3.ThePátria he

class ition can M w

for 217

inTable 2009

and relating mission

i ave majorit 215

iklós, ssue nationalit (functioning last representatives

and

trans

U me concrete

ex citizenship’ 2)

and

transmit nfortunatel

These of support. tremism bedownloaded proble in T

mb

for our 5.

an- y the g/h er mit

the

order in to ers and

/28600/miko Nyelv- agewouldbe the

cnm/item_6_36870.htm on y rights.” Forum ters

. i m

proble minori

2 the the on ters.

ssue of 19

National abolition

H 45

raised issue

both

Pol to

Many y

ungarian

a in as

oftheBeneš The

Eastern distribution

of

of hours

it minori

itika

218 negotiat mat from: Recentl

its

t

s Hunga proves the y the ides; laj-

the proble opt

petitioners [S The

countr ic

schools Minorities

a-

of

weekl thebest Hungarian ion=com_content tudy

http:

t Radio

the mag

dust rian issues y

minorit

part bilingual y Radio e

to comm decrees

football

- //www.ics.sk/cikkek/peticio- ms, ya all

y; L with

MPs

y be an in of

l r- 2

(acc

13 of

mainl claim ovodakat- the gu

ifthe

could toolto among

connection

the y Pátria

request

the un EU from

ag visited . etc.

the

essed Slovakia, incident

minorit broadcasting, stations e-

it This case

, y

specialists, y Po

tensionisbetween

fund the parties &task=vie

even during no realize

14May is is lic is-s others

Bratislava that 1)

Carpathian is y], the the i

n y zlovakositana.html s,

longer

(So

were to best Dunajská

the started though

only which the interest that

the 2009). 216 and this H w&id=7201 morja:

ungarian restoration

however,

proved

and European resulted shut day

H aim.

med the be

Basin a-

for

a ungarian Streda- Lilium official are

), patria- further

of countr

y down,

received iate which the 214

itstwom by (KMKF); are minorit (access

inhabited

schools

Dunaszerdahel (access in

radioert- AurumKön definitel

first

Union some the

yw of more

statistics discri

tensions and minori used

ide

the ed fact

time y

ed in

the

on30April2009).

es-

is changed in 3) of em

does

mina on30April2009). petition y

to

broadcasting

t by

jogainkert the

that

Bratislava,

ris protest y order in doubt yv

ber- the function

y, ing radio between are

kiadó,

ten not ted que citizens

t

the he states.

European of

to to still

ye “for stion raise

that unsolved

by against 2005). e station . OSCE

xtreme ars avoid ultra-

with

not

the the the the

54 its its of of in in

CEU eTD Collection 222 221 220 reco of nineties, the good remov alread been be until wave econo ever kind Slovak- chapter, of first ju the Constantin2008,160. stified,

http: http:

a the Romani

dissatisfied. IV novel migh

mm y

minorit reason the

of IV much mica y transmi //www.bumm.sk/15531/elbocsatottak- //www.felvidek.ma/index.php?

al decision /B.Rom cornerstones In

H /B.1.Thelaw enda

in

as

which end of and Roman ungarian and t of

sumpt

l be seem

advance,

an more the for and y

tion the of

all tters.

casefollowsthe are act—with

either. guessing.

is June

Pátria

an qualit ions, together

Ho law ia

alread

wishes delibera

unfortunatel coexistence. the ia as

wever If

of

which 2009,

on

y but onthestatusof gentle

the

stor Director

The the y reasons,

state

a 221 nine

according in

te

the argumen

it 220 framework y

successful

explanat

of apparentl the paranoia, and

should (The

are

language. Hungarians next draft y the

opt , for

O The

as both watchful as evaluat pinion ion=com_content

t s

chapter.) majorit

fabricated laws

to o

ion be the and rising called y

a-patria-

national

if true cohabitat of

European

imm

did

behind

exampl

it of the have ion The all

would

y should and and

nationalis

the

not ed

of of ‘ radio- the promise, Minorit

second iat reasons

been mino

perceived

the the

could ion Parlia e the

happen;

&task=vie rights el

minor

igazg not happen s not

y hows,

stations

Slovakian is change mad

rities m added, y

ment

have and atojat.html

Act’ the see about

at it of of

e y

furthermor w&id=13163

with

the at

the public mutu national third the ar

protection

in

asked

of

dates

that y the in the

beginning

Slovaks Europe

events intention transmi A mutu (acc

al Slovakia

points

ssembl ver

fully the back since

trust, the

essed minor al y e

& and Slovak

standards,

are mom tters patient the It

trust restoration

can are—be to 1993. y

emid on30April2009)

as of

of

the

iti of at

u the

scandal

be

sing

en argued refers es—appeared there restriction

=33 2008 the

the

part

2

compar beginning t 22 a of

yo (15

missing reason mom the

CoE

The y however,

the

is

nd gives to of

May

could

around in no ultra-

financial, en ison

doubts— coverage audience

adoption in

the

2009) bey need for t.

of

also in 1993,

short One

have with

as first

ond the this the the the

55 to

a a

CEU eTD Collection 227 National b Source: 226 225 Source: 224 Council ofEurope. 223 accession following in Hungarian really ethnic either, and that me obstacle, docum adoption contrast, reco month, Hungarian at as y Constantin2008,160. EPResolu

D.

“UDMR the earlier a More mb Parliamentar

mm of the soft a

C IV /B.2.

s

m er first

hristopher

ents ht

ht M has notwithstanding Within

a ended

and on

tp://www.divers.ro/actualitate_ inorit

tp://www.venice.co

of

Regular

condition the name inorities, 17- ofRomani might

result to EU

introduced

tion 2005,point26 tim minor the Part as the

changed promote

draft sent y

Education ies

e.

well, could shortcomings

l

the both governmen y Decker Assembly

y Source:

of be

living

it

the

In

(RM

Reports,

y

to last is

of 2 the

’s bi hindered

19. March 26 Februar

a

‘force in

lack

ll still

regarding

cases outand the and a

expense. but

ht DSZ),

two of

inRoman

missing the

that tp://assembly parlia Opinion

e.int/docs/2005/CDL

a Aidan accession.

of

held

rema there t in ; and new

ye out’ do or y

EU’s politi 2005.S

2 the Opinion

due 24 ars, away 2005,

men

McGar not. law 2006poin no

in

ined the

w The No. is EU-minor minori Law

ia.

cal

since hich to the prove

en on tar Regular 2 a .c 27 ource:

compose adoption 2

?wid=37647&fun

176 a

23 oe.int/main.asp?Link=/docum

consensus N proble the to r national y

will

y, laby

ne o Neither would

t on ha The be

t 13.(For debate.

Roman y 345

(1993) an w

shortcomings http:

s the weak from ri (2005)071

it language

y draft

/2005 mat

Reports nt

y been

adoption minorities” of ‘devolution’

//www.ecmi.de/download/Report_54.pdf Roundtable a

i h

reference mprove the on

kindoflist ic ia

the source the

among points of

had

of

points,

is the Since approved

conditionali

the c=vie - ruling

the Minority

e.asp?

a

and been

education, application

seefootnote of

me

Divers

Venice Romanian the for in of anal

wSubmission&sid=6672

the

will 2005 PrintVersion=True mb were

in

parties—regard minori of

elaborated ofs the National protection

y

er law by

Bulletin the

m sts Act Commission not ents/adoptedtext/

t

law, listed inorit urvivor in y

its b

the no.198.)

y regarding t then neither EP’s

of y

within

the be

Minority legislature Romania protection. adoption

the No.5(133) as y

government

in

able European

b was

education problems.

for y Resolutions

argued the Council

the re representat ; in

less

or all gardin

po to M

for the EP-Resolutions,

accession ta93/eopi176.htm Ps (acc.

favor in

stponed,

of has

enforce up the the

membership

and

in most ECMI

Thus (22Ma 14 g

Union

of

since

to

21Ma

in

the RMD national internationa been

Febru

t

he

Europe nor

now. ives too.

couple importan Report Draft

the

C periods,

y it but

the nothing ouncil y ar

2009).

SZ

225

2009). highly in at future y

of

of

onl

2005 L EU-

The

and . is nor

the # the the

aw

t 56 of or of 54 In he

y a t l .

CEU eTD Collection Hunga lesson, 230 http: the Universit 229 228 up wa me is As result classes state classes desired urgent, in which beginning qualit mist Opinions). books another

http:

desired

y the Professor mb J l argued in //www.hhrf.or ános imited

akes

of rian

y languages

//www.erdel

ers—but both as a lesson], . w ethnic

Further A

2 teaching or y

are as context.

28 clai Péntek, ould

L

Hungarian

of no and

of2009gave ‘textbook knowledge

Ecaterina

an lessons

the earlier

for

the Trans

ms Balázs used alternativ As gu

error finall Hungarian

i

ag

n

proper

the sub

there g/ha for ”Bezá Profes

a yl y e

Kontra are is One .m

P

to

vania the result

where

L

jects olicy in y rg indispensable, m

the

a/kultura.php?id=48799&what

ajos

of village, Andronescu,

issue’ teach rkózás, itanep taught

is inorit permi

content, e compe

sor part kno

R textbooks

Argues

inHigher majorit

herwords Sül an

omanian and the

of special

schools.

e/2007/aug/hn070815.htm

wledge t Balázs.

y of even urgent

tted

has

the ny Gaalamb? Dean

(‘n the tent

to com

the in

el w y

ye vóra

recentl the Education],( translations

many learn

langua hich

language

the

too.

sub knowledge textbooks

mu

of

lvór 2 the

are need as 29 of olving

teaching

The

és

the

nit

ject

language

pub it provided

render the new

a’). ge Magyar

Péntek history y

Therefore tanóra,

is y

of

lications, R

—i alternativ appeared among

are the

Hungarian omanian unreal

Minister kno the

Somorja: Forum In

t

of

the

more

of problems taught of

=ar egyetemi a should

explains wledge on adoption Hungarian

the Roman

Hung (which román

the

the

. chivum Hungarian that to

the

Romani

Lit e

difficul

in

current

expect

of Roman state arian (‘tanóra’), the curriculum

eratur

student

s be

the

tanítása t ian might hift is Education (access annyelv-

assoonpo s

that tatistics an

though

received I students.

language, e

medi t an. schools

nstitute, to

from towards ian the

amendm practice Department

textbooks

it

be

ed Székely the in po

a teaching language is The (e.g. on5March with

litika injured a for was Roman

also

2004.)65-66. by E.g.: Hungarians

deteriorativ

is seven-y as

i

alternativ in

fö

n en alternat teaching

translated visiting the the recom

ssible.

[ high

ldön”

in additiona

Does (accessed t this of are

ian

of

and

and ones

Romania, histor as 2009)

the school ea

the full case

[Enlacement,

i ive leaves a

me

t

r-

learning rema Székel

Sapientia e

e Fall foreign where the old

pupils,

y Education

nded from

on curriculum of

l

to curriculum gradu the

or

value

in

kid, Roman Into 16

gram

m much

however yf

Romanian,

geography lim

Roman by ix

ation) foreign

Ma

on öld

language and Hungarian Our growing

languag ma the normal ited. for

y a

ian

at to

Law,

2009)

prove high

ti as L AC

and

ian the the cal ap? for

57 be 230 or

in is a e

CEU eTD Collection Romania. Source: safe be The not and They 235 separate, 234 233 20maghiari 232 231 help Csángó As the It nam European simpl “s mul Hungarian the and called Hungarian is onl teaching

For Source:

eparate

is http: conducted

See semb “ authorwith

taught

gua

C T culture. ticu

criteria el since

again have he in sángós, such y y

y //manna.ro/porta/bevetes rd.” m “H waiting

Another

A Csángós ltura

s order l claim ht not ore minori

y

tate i the a

%20EN.pdf

Ci documentssee ungarian

n tp://ec.europa.eu/

then

further, Europeans”.

legal

of

be C

specific Universit

Universit the

at i i ted f practiced lism

sángó of n t

Roman

yo inanced the

i to

i ht s

Csángó from

t

forpolitical

their the

t thisshortparagraph

are

ht multi sta nd

tp://www.boly y, as docum still , access

tps:/ CoE

-

refused

ted,

archaic speakers

well. ho much proble a the the board- (access Hungarian-languageUniversity

ian

y non-homogeneous /wcd.coe.int/View y; basic cultur

un wever,

villages.

would

from footno called in

232

scope Parliamentar

ents, They

and to solved language commission_barroso/orban/news/docs/pr

Roman m l disputed

scandal” ifestyle ed

the have

mo alis re_k O

utilizat right

like 2 is the Leonard ai 18Ma would

tes 33

n the alread As of

.eu/

ther

(re)foundation

m unsolved.

esz_roman_tanterv_2009_03_04.html no.28-35. on the been their

proble

side

a the

ia,

and

Roman

thus to

or y consequenc

also ha y

the

tongue

Assembl

ion. 2009) case

other happened y

the children

declining

only thesis

Doc.jsp?

i s view

higher group n of O in

m

alread

like same

there I 231

rban, Boly

ll

the

2001

is ian

y refers

wanted o

side The és to

education, f

of to y

the to the , e,

Ref=GR-

majorit

be ai Recommendation 1521(2001)

y

token as education governmen

Roman Agota,

is

the

balance

of be

very

for ju -

Rom

been

the

w recognized University

a (re)establishm to inRomania,

st no orld, taught

the

proport touchonthe Roman

the

few

before the

Representat the

y anian

C(2001)29&L need Ca "

worked

, Boly Righ

ancient

need or Csángós

cannot all tholics, y the Csángó

ion

as t claim

med ian ts-

as

the part ai Csángó for the

still

in ” t of

of ess_rel it alk"

a

tradi University Budapest: out

EU

ia;

w

Clu accounts the d y know be accession the minor

ent is

very istinct ho

has ives that (access

minori argues

an leg

tions, and b language popu

Com j-Napoca clai codified

ease/070718_ma speak

y gu establishm

of

itimacy: ho

not

existence one-sided Hungarian

it

ag of cul me

even w CEU,NAT lation

y a and ed mi

t e=

on Csángó

y.

that to an ture of

the protection established

separate, d on5March b lanEn of ssioner

235

y

wr

and

a

early real

this

ethnic

the

and

in

(Kolozsvár). and stating Romani g the ite H

reat

The the ent glish&

ungarian

ofproble

case

t internation

Boly

mult mu

Csángó heir f to universit I s orm

ghia

2001/8.

m church pecial

variety respon

for discrim be inority state- Parliam lti

2009).

regarding of mother that

Ver

icul ri/decla ai a

of institutiona cultura assi

setting

to a language Hungarian. case,

=r ist,

services

tural of financed minor sted

culture sible it m. separate

ev2 y the

ination The al

t

f ratie% would entar ongue. meets olk and 234

lis

in ism up thus EU,

and

the for

it art m,

58 s

its

to i i it o a y y n s l .

CEU eTD Collection 240 basis- 239 238 237 community Anti-Discrimination to 236 effects on novelt Februar the moth of Education comp frozen mul ‘volunteer providing Moldavia, tongue assimi or

Principleof See See

have http:

The ‘violent schooly nursery Roman tipl of-decentr er m m arison IV

//manna.ro/porta/an y

lat Roman

Hungari

ied of The Finall ore ore:

y education tongue /B.3.“Decentralization” problems, is ion

i

the at:

that withthehelp

n itsdiocese. ia along

suggested, Hungarian ht

a s schools. teachers’ ea sub new

240 ponsored ssim

tp://en.csango. to Ca y

http: of alization__l2a104555.htm an- new r,

, ),

strengthens

tholic sidiarity in

theminor after

the speaking

the and the //www.gov. ila

Boc-governmen

C the

government’s gain ouncil. one tion’

Hungarian Bishopric case reco

S the is

The

however nur (Point15)inDoc:P6_TA(2005)0531. y from by ource: lectures

an

ofthe welcom even

church

hope ro/index.php might mm enumera

y ser

it Recently of e new Hungarian ro/on-

y lv the

y friendly http:

end _ovod

Transy of

the more

Romanian curricula.

services.

for

not occur perception I ed its-meeting- authorit to asi Csángós

ed //www.kronika.ro/index.php? decision t

tion

a_tanr Slovakian

t has

l also has

he ?page= pupils—outside y developm European

lv i et mportanc a

regarding

ani

state

Catholic been of

This mendm green-

end_2009_04_27.html adopted, y 2 b 38

a

state, y

education the the- is are

of

rejecting

would kind

Hungarian If or

and

close

government-

ent most lighted nursery

majors ambiguous.

norms e. en the

Bishopric astheonein

of Hungary

the ts a

private

(acc

discrimination

s The

Ministry cancom

give

recomm for hould to i

mportant—sin catholic

of (men a

essed and many

irreversible

schools.

Seeagain

minori

As

large- much has- stated

the 2 action=open& 37 foundations,

sociation tioned

i (access also

county —however, A en

y n 23Ma d e adopts

concern. ea iscussed- into

Csángó schools

scale positive dation

t t rs

more y hat was

footnoteno.198.

be the

representativ ed forcefrom also The

y there ce

council

also on30April2009). the

decentraliz the 2009). demand

men the- of regarding

po

res=26572 co

the

curricula examp in

Roman

condemned ssibilit successfully

draft s principles-la C mm i

upport this s tioned, the

sángó-

EU

no

of chair uni

September

last le

before the

Hunga es, effort y accession ian (23Ma ation

t to

can

y.

H of Csángó for

working men.

EP especiall

ho b 2

ungarians the yi 36

y Ministry

rian

the

be

ng

wever,

the the the process

resolution work y could

Since 2 - curricula 2009).

39 at-the-

seen

believers

National mother Catho

2009. end use still—

y s with This

the

the

for

on 59 be of of lic of in in in

CEU eTD Collection on 23Ma 247 those affectingthem.” persons 246 Com for street /Sepsis 245 244 http: 243 ~ 39% 242 241 men however, right discri with of Hungarian speaking Roman fourteen Education, last actual increased. civil to exa The takelessonsinHungarian,

http: http:

Two Article ht The Transy the mple

//www.pref missioner tioning tp://www.fig ten

placards ofthetotalpopulation.SeemoreinTable mina Emergen for zentg percentage

s //www.fig //www.fig demonstrat

discrimination repres belonging ervants mass ian Since

y y

2009). Hungarian

15 in

ea effective lv Hungarian the

y tion

2 inspectors Teacher’s

oftheproble ör 43

entation rs. ani of Oradea/Nag

demons Barroso The in

g ectur

c which the

y decisions

y FCNM: y y

front a y of ,

Ordinance e e

to in el According

than lo lo or

representat ions,

of ag o.ro/b

new Hungarians nationa .ro/panor .ro/szorvan

; trations

of

for orj.ro/files/fisier the of participat

and the

school among 2 by

the

Hunga

44

A the “

asking (the elfold/kelemen-

).

governmen

The

the ssociation

finally Members street yv territories ethnic l of

oftheGovernment, m

bui minorities were ama/fotan

ár R in The

rians new Part

s y to ldings inspectors MDSZ ion for others chool- - ad,

ion

241 thischapter. es-partium/romanul-

the in organized: the

ies

support. placards composition,

in butcounter

Representat inspector

where of

these e/legislatie/ord_u

other where

in

Hargitha

shall

felug t of of

ne in in

inspectors

touched the where semm

ha

adm Miercure west cultu Roman the

s

da y

in create

majorit Hung

according

e Hungarians one

been y lo

i- 7.

inistra - ral, European or

the

22April2009: Har nem-valtoz t- the 247 in

orders

csereltek Hungarian ives arian i the

examp 242

n a- ia, social

the gita

Hargitha/Hargita with

Hungarian Members

s do Ciuc/Cs y Febru but fognak- worn

tions

rg the school-inspector

conditions regions. ~85%, civil

of _37_22ap

influence

of to and

this -

ar ott-csak- les

diploma Churches, hargita

Parliam

246

in the

the y íkszereda in a servants tanuln

economic

of are—sofar—in

b C new

tim than cit y constitute the

ovasna-

Boc-govern Hungarian t majorit

This - he dignitaries rilie_2009.pdf necessary y meg i- e eppen-

a-nag ent, tic

number the

decision

European manag this were

to in

y

is the life Kovászna eb

Count

Ma minor sue the y letters y all a-len

en proportion

replac positions va

and

counties

H

y; - for

em of majorit ra

i

protest—in s.htm ungarian migh scope

of

ment Com ye t di

Parliament

the y

he in (acc churches it the en 2 ed - g-

majorit

45

koz y was fired

~74%, pub RMDSZ

nem- —against ts l

i local (acc. t effective n mun education, essed

ossegi-

y and

rather lic of too, order never were

is the

even

a-re

ethnic

has

a National and on23May in it

on23May

language ffairs, y. sent policem

the

y,

nine their decided gi.html rendorok.html to

Sfantu

replaced

i pa lowest belong

n proud reflected

dramat arose such

a Ministry rticipation Mures-

the i

Hungarian n

letter out hence own

particular

Gheor (access en Council

to 2009).

attention

2009).

as in rights, of ethnic

of to

ica

put Maros

to

have with way

not the the the the the the ghe

the ll

60 of up ed of y

CEU eTD Collection 248 min promot Arzor’s Secondly Neither y has and generosit cit on major the the Finall székel develop and Opinion indicat ea

http: y

the rs

Romania IV

other im cit

more for population

y

since //tobbny y

/C.Co y um underpinning ions one

ion Firstly This Furthermor flags)and

men a

reduction of w categori of

y

da recent it or flowingfrom ritten

requirem

hand, and the

the the y t in fourth can

elvus

after less

can he mp

it m

Advisory minor countries

that

in on order zation— can

also

announced

eg and

arison bilingual

intends constantl theaccession,

be e—in

of chapter .transindex.ro/?

Romani ent

the his be of

it tensions that brought

be y

of

is

seen thebelieve mu

other—are decision—that

the Comm language in

joined concluded the

compli to the

y w lti an, signsstill

the

that

context as that developed cultura provide

new

Hungarian

to which

English inspired

it lang=hu

the regim outofwhichthe

ed new te compared

booking

major e

remained

inmul

lis

with, without EU that alread of

create

appear further trilingual e m (access

and

language Hungarian to in

this of

of does

do Romani

namel

ticu pre y

in the

tensionsupto linguistic to Clu

F

continuit called

doubts

not

ed in rench

to language sent

this ltural

the not countries,

on15Ma

j-Napoca/ sign

practice y

be seem a following rights—the

accession the

reach the respect

language for ism and

language.

a true, will

y

tolerance

situation protection

the could

problem

to has y rights

; Slovakia (any 2009)

be

but

in

K no however be for as

definitel conclusionscan

olozsvár

period put the

havechanged

is w among official 2

unfortunatel more)

use used more 48 to

of

not

as on

last in

of

The

the both language of

w

in the all an

Trans y effective a

minori the

five is

s

here use

s

stuck Hungarian

argum

minori ym

practice,

the

international a belong—according worth

strateg 20%

yl

result of bo or y

minor historical t

hisperception.

van y

rights in bedrawn:

not ls local ents

respectivel

i

threshold t languages

mple

men y y both (Hungarian ia-

and

it that and of

of

y u wide. com in names, tioning

sed me

protection a

majorit countries.

linguistic language Slovakia sights

much onl kind mun nta

b

y of

y y

from

tion,

;

The

two and

it the the

the

on 61 or of of of y. to y .

CEU eTD Collection 252 in Sl 251 anti- 250 Minorities ofEuropeUnite! The Hunga the 249 intoleran act content the appl devolution relativ The historical before arrive humi context Kosovo than for both politic it discri

Kontra seems

Árpád I

None

t

2008 that;

Hungarian ovakia furtheranal same which number is y

lia in in rian mina

enough el al actuall

to

The chapters—that

ting

of of 2 Slovakia etall1999,10.See Duka- y

as Romanian the

of 49

ce that is exclusion parallels parties Under

the

tolerant the

tion,

the ar further

an would can

and

Slovakian a

rhetoric gued

lo

pre-accession of to y in Zól Hungari conclusion—however

independent

Hungarian

ya groundless

Attack,” a

take

in be without both classes the y y

lt

mixtur omi,

sis in the and

more

election. hasvital y detected public result

of in reached - Balázs presence ofthe

an

declarat government to

countries

“The minor

Roman

case parties

in consideration in

ed.Csaba

the e of appl

m

further

Minori environ of

textbooks, Vizi,

Tough, both land casesalread

suchalevel,

ore

state, attack

Hungarian i general regarding period. is

it

yi ion

the mportanc was of y inC ia

indeed ng of

“Minorit the ties ofEurope coalit

parties cases

Tabajdi(EU-

anti- in

‘three status-quo: invo

as underpin and ment re

hapter any

on politica 250

the the strict

intolerant, indicated ions

onl lved minori and

that

whichisalread

an protection positive the

y hate- e

the

I from imm towards language, y

The inthe w

y R /B somewhat ion

divergesfrom

in

exampl

a additiona ights

indirect in .2.

historical l ys speeches from

Uni Hungarian

the this t ed

Ground at

y at Slovakia ver the to

of

mosphere future

iat

sentim in new te! anti-

the provisions

de

y the minori

anti- governm restricting e e t

of ed.

he m

l

iure by

Ltd., y facts beginnin for gove po of ll ight y

minori

minor “New”

be C use y and

ofmajorit

reconcilia minorit ents J st-

controlling—wi to an saba the by

a yo ties rnments 2009) have eachother. part

accession

de has

countr that Slo nd of

not

planning ents

it are Tabajdi g whole

in t

EU facto—the t

y has

y y, ta influenced

minorit of he minori

221. turned

y

favor

rhetoric language from none

(SNS-S

rooted

pol

Member either and/or

the including y tion at began y-

K (EU- mosphere. where itical hostil

minor

t

period

osovo

hird t

the of to

y y of

against after lovakian and Hungari

largel

the

education’ Ground Ltd., also political amend languages. these

th to S

the chapter, very rights. tates

it

since

situation

the

deteriorat the y

stricter debate forcing is

relation.

seems y it

an

countries

2006 251 the

After languages. y. National

a content

in adoption

the

National

the

striking

the decision In

minor the

of L 2 Slovakian

2009)511. took

En

52

state

censures—the to

Slovakia a

accession

participation m

e

it This stly composi

lar b

Part inorit

be and

y

of

iti to Commun gement,” recognize

place

language

reducing of exa

y) stronger es.

the we making

Thirdly y rise a

sign ,

or

whose s rights.

mple

clear

ome

the The tion

after two in can the

62

it

of of in y a a y

CEU eTD Collection 253 general migh Consequentl of the notion could Roman education—which be and unsuccessful general affect the Introduction because that and of Duka-

the

desired.

minor four

end

that nationalis the t oneach

Slovak

not be of ia m In In

Zól

intolerance of

actors, devolution of still

Slovakia

it inorit

a status the s

y have the

y hort,

omi

the right

y

as

hasnot

decentrali Finall

case protection other. government.

m vica 2009,505. first

y ethnic

these a

been in protection; quo

beco

tool result

of Roman

y versa

chapter would has towards happens

reached can

two

the Romania me

in pattern with zat

of

j

so oined

be the is an missing events ion—which

ia

this

be

language Due

which

hencethe

far minori

booked

the organic ju

due outco thelevel

of

stified necessar

the ‘game

as

the

status to the or

to

intention oncoming me same

protection ties the

reasons

sub

European as the part rights

general

of

seems oflinguisti

trough of me

quo y still success

sidiarit

rising kind

per

the mb both of

could form

is most

manent

for

the ership to

research

as approach of of present

the y

of

for Union. have sumpt or

the

regression Slovakian is

a minori probabl

have c

national

cannot,

promot part

lacking anal

of

the barging’

developm a

ions in

done

the mere

been

y inthe of ties

m

ses the y

But

Slovak

inorit ism minori

remains cannot ion. and

from

cannot politics. l

in is

y preserved, wider

of and

previoussentence.)

political ent

how the within concerned. conclusions y

the

t

language

National

y

sensitive total and

case of

be s

a 253 rights, ociet

it

process—leaves

question. the

observed. the

l

and y majorit wa w of O

y

be hereas

ne

indeed

. home

s

the

thus Party

financial po

Whether rights

can separated, Further indicat could

wer language y

—p

the

(As

in be state

the Ho

intercultura

balances

Slovakia protection. than roves ed evaluation

drawn

wever

the argued populism

approach

the much and

as in

so rights argue

ver the

that

not the the for

far

63 of

to at it y y l

CEU eTD Collection 255 254 empower developed. minor have nam necessaril developed, control enforce enlarge promise EU Hughes earlier countries border several onl condition, C Viz Hughes o y n

el and

c in i 2009,221. created it y l

than u

y men What After ment, line the oftheEUm

examp disappeared, obtaining and & not s

ed

y condition in i Sas the the o

t

pre-enlarge lead

the to n

Sas

a

until one

period? an anal the could The

se

minori les outco positive critic

2003,30. se datu

‘EU-conform’

to

of Copenhagen yz

mem sho argue, the

newcomers’ the

ize in me m its than 2 of

em 55

t g wed—alread

The y

of

men minority

bership, develop its direction—seeing protection core bership furthermore the of the

that enlarge be

me past the t

cases Copenhagen

period politica

promised mb minorit

conditions,

research helpedto

ment

minori five

the ers condition perception men

wa of y

and

new as l

and

as in y of

t. Slovakia s nolonger norms. t

y

protection a

or the the the s

For

the

develop protection re uggests two

states

it

criteria,

ceased sult reserved

had

m

very internal EU from the 2

nevertheless 54 ye inorit

of and

might ars

gave very indeed

aconcern However

aminori that has finish to the the

and y

Roman sy proved

exist,

by

monitor

situation. end missing been

up ste minor prospective have

w the of

affected m, stres

hich of

t

or

ia is largel ofthe y- it

the that

it com definitel

minority

ing the

friendl y ho

is sing and minor right

protection

does accession w

without

Once as e y accession

procedure ne

minor

the to of Vizi

rhetorical on the

y it w m y

because

polic

the

the y not

condition the ‘getting

effects in

internation reference puts

it

doubts em

conclusion comp y m

minori need

proces has y

it inorit

bers. inthe protection

has it,

on

has

the of

been lianc into

as

the to that

This t

for y not

s. the y

from appeared,

—w al the countries.

EU

is be

part e the

importan

power Thus the

the that y sues—as

mino with external

as et didnot

the

further of is

team’,

of

mere post- been even the

rity

EU not the the the the

64 of as y t

CEU eTD Collection East EuropeanPolitics& 258 257 256 states’ job. to the countries, factors it countries’ the European continuing —that particul their such structure candidates this. Public exa minor Treat is Micheal Hughes Topidi2003,31.

in

mple conditions

not pre-enlarge

y as the anal A H it .

need

Admin y However the s owever

ar s

s Topidi,

& uch It

urprising J of a Introduction. which

proble y

U area

ohns, ““Do in

relevance.

fulfillm

Sas ses can

result in EU

nion the

for

as addition

istrat se

the

and

in after

be

256 the

men

Slovakian 2003,27. ms seem the some

reinforce

that

it

finding 2003) that ent concluded very H

ion circumstan EU

AsI s both t rising uges the hould

Societies ed devolution

laws of to degree

these Law

unfortunatel

sa last

Unfortunatel

enlarge

in

to the the

in

and

the y,

the Minorit

of

be

NotAsI s, what were fail

Romani mo

countries internation EU’s

, 4/200317,698.

that of nationalism right ces Sa further notwithstanding emphasi men me

sse, linguistic this (or

extent of the drafted

y nt

above Do”: y

balance

t.

a 257 Language only

the y

failed of

exam developm EU

gave

and

The the zed or

al TheEuropean

‘tennis the the

status

men wa

J

expectations

and and uniformi ‘referee’

Slovakia ohns, answer

up

again

to

between and enlarge EU s

tioned

be man Law the their the

conceived ent quo) gam

258

the will

successful that

for y changing man all

t

in

men Union,Eastern or y also

intention e’

in can tim handicap,

mino the

be and the

their po it

has the y without their t es

seems be

sed is pla capable institutiona

or post-enlarge

rity

the in amended changed

successful

que not

detected

ye

either in

for of accession the

a need rs—n

condition

stion

all developing to exclusivel considering internal

rush European same

further

of

be contributed on

of

again,

am

Romani l can in having

reluctant

in in keeping developm

men minorit

question el countries. period

developm political raising y be—with order andMinori could

y

t w

between

s

period. the an hich minorit an uch ies

pressure

to as

to

Education

to ents affect (at failure not awareness

was an to arena the

continue

the

ents. As

confidence ensure

t

the

y

y

safeguard the retain Scholars, incentive Rights,”

all ’s

fact some referred

striking

on

end

needs, Other on of in prove home

that

this and

the the the the

on 65 its its of of

CEU eTD Collection 262 Minorities ofEuropeUnite! 261 260 259 EU.” the toda started the now proble minor process one. politic Roman national assure not linguistic their opinion also their I Thiscate Viz Csaba stván

national stronger sufficient

y,

politic

be 2 should i 2009,223. o All 62 it

al ms wn

the that ia y The What

S

as

kept resulted in Tabajdi,

minori

zentivány decision,

conflicts the

(who

gorization isreinforc

into toleranc

identit most an

the

al it

European

m

front can the

inconsistenci an radical

should

economi inorit enough new the

t

never

“Sisy y impor

ey y— leaduscloser tempt in i,

e, com “EU EU one before

e

however, countries the ies

phus m

the izat on,

be

having

tant

mem and mu i i

ation c to

of gh who ed.Csaba fact ntegr

ion,

kept polic

integration, is i

n nit t preserve the

the

es

aim the

seem ber ed the

that

ation that make 259

ies becomes

around

further moved their b y accession. in

greatest

w external

European

y of tothe

states

of

in

Tabajdi(EU- K andprotection if

mind the hich

even

national

ymli

up

anti-discri Europe, the proble the

EU’s the

on, from

isnevertheless s

around the first

cka’s

to

that challenges

anti- harder

olution cultural concern Union—the

minority it

emplo m Thus European

argument

their and as

minor might “the for minori

Ground seems

sump ofm mina 8%

in ofthe

foremost examp

the y

ancestral heritage

of less

ities: the

inorities: new of disappoint

strategies condition tion t Con Ltd., tion facing

y refe the newcomers

to

the

Union future. problem? unfavorable. we at

tradictions le

the be and 2009) rrin EU mosphere failed

European

the

support have

and

the

lands), g interpreted ‘reproduction.’

tothethree becam

human

has done

detrim 35.Seemore

Hungarians the

opportuni

An

European that

cultural to

of

have

reached minori 2

other

60 understand legitim

b e

will European

the U

ent

y rights is internali

nion’s

the t impor

ties—old challeng

a

al yp ver countries

diversit domina

factor, ties

matt

i

U es at

EU to living

n Table such y

protection of nion:

e

Minority

The ted population. which the

often zed. er minorit m

in that

te y on

inorities, 2007,PI.

of

a minori the

8. existence cohesion in

the

can

of

the

politica The

fact w the as Slovakia could

Protection,” enlarge

hich Europe y

problem

solve are

cli a

es,”

regi t demands, and me

y- 261 politic mat

lead simpl related

should l

in Ibid.

mb of

me of

O not men level their

e

and and nce the the ers

66 of

of of to al

in y a

t

CEU eTD Collection 268 267 266 respect ethnic 265 Europe N.Tog 264 263 according on Bureau as exploited. Cooperation For extent beco the Treat some especiall minor more around inconsistencies European and OMCisformer Tog Benedikte http: Relevant

minori However

linguistic

EU this kin-states mes

y ge

or genbu cul com it Uni //www.eblul.or

signs

these

nburg the y In To

40 … history for

y

reason tural,

t Union,the

te! protection

a

y

mi

order articles

langua

rg r avoid since

word

to the mill The 2006,17.

Lesser-U ed. rights practic legall

, 267 that 2009,179-184.

tt changes religious and “The

ed

w wording , C isamethodfor or

should

ion 264

latter around ge,

the

to hom

saba of

a the ‘minori such

to

y national

the EU’s

further

g/index.php

m

… the abstain

EU binding

find alread

Tabajdi othersareonl y

ild sed andlinguisticdiversit

2004

provide

recentl , one

et Charter

the is kind membership attitude change

citizens, the ,

ties’ shift

s es ver Languages

ho

olutions.

with s y

minorit

Agency of hould enlarge

the (EU- y

m

of spreading wever existing y

?o docu

are:

cautious inorit would

v might an

the

ption=com_content&task established

disintegrat is- its above the Ground Ltd.,

Art.21.“An

á-vis w

explicit be ment of

ies mem

men behavior.

ho y y adoption

the

a

touched As

should

268 vested best happen be

(EBLUL),

condition capacit

national

as m construed are

t,

bers. inorities:

y. and relevanc well-known as included it

practices

” ha ion

compe

y mem Fundament refers 2009)179. w

s di with

even

ies mon uponbriefl

minori of ell, in The

scrimination not been A

bers a

the harm s the 2

of neither e which tence

among 65

proble itor play entitle

in b only

same the

t

of

y

y, the

however constantl

Treat

=view&id

future:

the

the of

J

… in

al

the the án the

main

to

the theMembers.

to EU,

ms me encourages three

is argued national

shall

Rights EU-P

EU y based

y Figel,

rule

‘group atthe credibil is

nts

situation EU,

the in

sue

for concern

be =208 parts y has With it

ri on

in the to

proving.

prohibi

Charter ’

mar A the but rema end. exampl

in

any (acc b minor mon no the nor and

genc it

future

y the

y

y the

Slovak the

other

binding

ground

for exa to

essed area an of ins ted;” of itor of Law

y

adoption iti

‘group of

2 open e

last Agenc

63 the should

minor the

questionable es,

and

on21May the

human Art.22. actors of

Fundamen

such for

EU

Recentl mple

end,” EU fifteen the provision

minor thesis

O to rights’.

y iti the

as pen Comm

be

“The to in

avoid es like of

EU the

rights i sex

n

first

it much

2009)

focus the y lies Minori the M y

y and

,

European

In

tal Union has ea the race,

there

ethod rights.

issioner,

in

relating that

ey ti rs,

as

Lisbon on

Rights

Gabriel

me

better hom make to

ties more es

w color,

well shall

and

the the are hat

67 be

of 266 of of of e

CEU eTD Collection 271 Csaba 270 Csaba 269 countries improv historical others other the ought should an Slovakia existing the Rights Com alread unquestionabl initia protection since comp reco Csaba Alan examp J mom án current mm mission Tabajdi(EU- Tabajdi(EU- tors there

etenc

Figel, ethnicit y

P to Treaties,

languages em Moreover However, S be

hill enda

EU en

proposed ógor, shouldtake be

should le

en

on reconcilia

isaneedfor

e ips, “Minoritiesinanever favored t, “L instrumen sy

from

preferred butit t should tions

me

“I an ies

ste should of y the

gua especiall asures required. nter

ms

Ground Ground the

and

and

the there the

the

oughtto ge

for cultural

filed, in

that

do be s, tion situation

equal given ts. also

pla cultures.

me their cohabitation

as

Education

Ltd., Ltd., and not improv broadening is

y the

mb

y

the compet

between Education

obviously The could even

that Alan

place

bedifferent more partin. context. 2009)284-285. 2009)27. instrumen educationa er

art

EU of

em

CoE states

of the and

Without P enough minori be of though

widerEuropean ent

en active hillips,

s

anditsC

Dialogue home on living

hould of more

ts. In EUinstitut no and

FCN s ts

stead 269 hould l the the

t

in need

y

to s emph

role

a yst respecting Pre

the innovative

languages

thefuture. together

and

one hallenges M.

ratif the minorit In

for better of the em

sident

to also

2 OSCE in

70 asis Union—TheFCNM,” order Europe’s needs hand kin y

s; duplicate

ion.

Both

the

forced or the be

y

inR

on rather cooperation of states

one of

and and

ho

relating to more moni should

of

of the

the Framework omania,”

Minorities,” Hungarian w

fulfill minori

monol

act another, values,

majorit the

existing than Sógor Advisor would toring

active

mor

ideas preserve minor

inIbid,

j t these ust

y ingual

y

e

among

puts

or in in

me com

definitel

and and y internationa comm

independentl will s

next it

Convention Minorities ound the Minorities ofEuropeUnite! Comm chanis 475. y

missions,

it: ism mu

first progressive education,

their i

not

to mportanc uni the these nit as an

y the

it m each

and

ties, ies. be

tee

roles contribute ‘intercultural of

mult l of exaggeration

Europe peaceful.

minor

y

institutions

foremost of

the other,

in and

Romani

CoE on

e when

icultur

being the in of w

A the

hich it

those adapting

Uni that

271 genc FC y Human

taking to

other, rights a

alis te! since

ma

NM, each ism both

The

and y’

the the ed.

of 68 ed. at in m is s ’

CEU eTD Collection countries activi b of the Member languages y

com m the

ties should

mo The home

oracting

States, to

n were

reasons

minor

external realize

states—is

thus depended it in

y

claim that favorofminori

framework the relations,

their

not ed solution

on

behind

sustainable

o mini wn

nam

b

y

of approach—ei mu

the ties the el

the y m

onl detected European

representing

two an problem y y duetoexternal

(f)actors, longer;

ther backlash

Union should

of

minority and

being on

or

likewise. relating

neither

the conditions. supporting

reluctant

condition European

the of

Sooner

them protection

to only

onl elaborate U

nion

shall monol y or

towards later

of

and li ingual

mi any minor

both on t

third their kind

ism the

it 69 of y

CEU eTD Collection Duka-Zól Constantin Csergő 2007 Cassese 1995 Buček Brunner Brubaker Benő Benő Barbour Books B i b l &Péntek2003 2007 i 2001 o & Chapte g 1995 2000 1996 yo r 2008 a m p i h 2009 y rs Budapest: and Kelet- [Language Benő, 2007. 35-44. Policy Nyelvi [Language Benő Attila. Cathie Language Barbour, Cassese, Budapest: Eastern Management Level Buček, Internation Applicat Protection Brunner, Universit national Brubaker, Tabajdi. Under to Duka-Zól EURAC Research. Em Effec Constantin, Romania Csergő, Reappraisal.

De ma

Eastern ts Közép-Európában

], Carmi

Facto—the

Attila

in

jogok, Attack.” Ján. on

EU-G Lantschner,

ion

Zsuzsa.

andSlovakia

y Europe question ed. Georg.

yo

A LGIBooks,2001.273-306.

Antonio.

Pres and Rogers.

al,

Slovakia.” Stephen. of

Rights rights Minority Sergiu. m “Ny

kadé

Cambridge

“

chael. Europe] 1995.291-302.

Bodó, i, Minorities.” and Responding

ed. of round Ltd., Nationalism s, 1996. nyelvpolit

Árpád.

, elv mia Talk

“The

In

Multi-

and Bolzano:European eds.

in Hungarian Péntek Oxford:Universit

in Nationalism i “

Sa

jo

Kiadó,2003.123-147.

Self-

Romania.

Minorities

J Barna.

Protection the

“

by . Romania]. of oseph

jó

gok ésan Concept In Nationalism use Ithaca: “The [ A : Ethnic

Cambr

ika

the determination Minoriti 2009.500-525.

eds. nna New

Diversity

In János. to Andrá in of

Nation.

Land [Language

Te Marko

W

Diver Europe National Cornell ”

Or Mária mother

Europe.

estern of

In mesvár: idge ya Reframed. Com

of

sol in s. es, In

“Ny n

European G , of

sit

y ya

Language

Universit

Europe roup South

Kisebbségek, el munities y

,

Language in Academ y

and Language, Status- London:

Universit Bíró

P elv eds. vh

Rights? :

tongue

Comm Nádor

Cambr

ress, 2000.1-17.

of Solutions Action: aszná

Rights i Szórván Rights

Stephen

Antonija

Nationhood j Easter-Europe ogok and

Peoples

Q Integration Unite!

y

uni y,

Policy lat uo: - idge: in in Post-Communist Pres

y

2008.139-165.

and

László Romániáb P

and in Kluwer Petra

t y

L

y Roman Román

from Europe.” Central nyelvpol

ress, 2007.

at ocal

Barbour

the

s, 1995. — Alapítván in

Conflict Cambr

ed. in Petričušič. the Language

A

Slovakia

Kovács. Filed and Central

De

Szarka.

and Public ia.] iában

C Legal , Local

iti saba Law idge

an.”

Iure and eds. and

the

ka its 70 in of In In y, ”

CEU eTD Collection Meijknicht K K Kontra Kontra Kontra Kettle Kamusel Horváth Harris 2002 Grin & Göndör 2009-05-23 Figel ym ym li li 2009 y ck ck etall. 2005 2004 Ky 2003 &Scacco a a la & 2007 2009 ml 2004 Patten 1999 ic ka 2003 2001 2003 In Göndör EU-Ground Ltd., Minorities.” Figel, Approaching Human Tibor Kontra, Somorja- Kontra, Forum Language in politika Kontra, Open Societ Countries, building, Roman Kettle in Kamusel Bíró Communities Diversity Pluralistic Horváth, Slovakia Harris, Daftra and Diversit Grin Ltd., Slovakia, Realit Meijknecht, Oxford: Universit and Theor K International K Budapest/New ym ym ModernCentralEurope

Higher Minorities

andPetraKovács.Budapest: 2009.332-338.

Language li li Political Francios

y: y:

y ck ck y Institute, Várady Ján. ia:

andFranciosGrin,(Budapest:

y

Carmen. Erika.

[ Péter. andSlovenia a, a, Context,

la, Miklós. Miklós. Does Rights.” Romania Miklós, Dunaszerdahel

I István

in in : mplementation

Education].

Ethnici Will The

in

Will. eds.

“ To

y

Transition

Fine-Tuning Action: Languages, In Politics

Institute,

Anna . in

of

Y Linguistic Theor masz. Education, it

“

and

Nationalism “C 2004. Politi Minorities A and and

Farimah Hungarian

Central Fall ork: 2009.24-33. Europe

Multicul

Ethnici

y

Is Sült Tan-Nyelv- ty Robert onceptual Comp andBulgaria Pres In

sues, Will

Alan Alexandro

y

K L Central The ofDiversity cs Into , .

and ocal

. Resume 2003.245-265.

Language, England: Countries.” Gaalamb? s, 2003.1-51.

ed y:

t in arison

Minority and y, U Education and

Daftray

Politics K Patten. tural

Liliu

of Our s. Hu . Hampshire

Minorit

P Debrecen, nite!

of Public ym

Tran Language Language

izing

hillipson,

Minorit European

and

Politi Will man

Council Eastern A

Europe li Lap?

m Scacco. of O if

pproaches.” ck As .

ed. sition

Aurum “

dysseys

LGIBooks,2001.243-272. . Oxford:OU

The the

of

and

Democ Language a. and the

y

ka Management Ky a In Magyar Rights hgate, Protection,

y

H

and Csaba L

“A

Hague:As Polic

ECRML

OSI,2003)11. Nation-

ml anguage

ungarian Conference

Right

Europe Unite! : [Study

and October of Francios U

Imple in Palgrave, Tove Countries “ Polit sse

ic From Köny

Dialogue ratization: niversit 2002.

- Europe

ka

y Context.

Transition ssing eds. Tabajdi.

Navigating

In

egyetemi Rights ics

me

-

and building, , ed. in Language- Skutnabb-Kangas,

and

P, 2003.

the

vki

Language and

eds.

and Language

nt 2004. G

Standards

of ser y

K 2009. , the Roman

in

Csaba

ing Press,1999. rin. adó,

on U

Standards ontra

eds. a

Alan for Multi- P the

and Nationalism Anna

nitar

EU-G

In

Polit

ress, 2004.

Politics the Tran

Resource: Politics

Linguistic 2005. Budapest:

tannyelv-

Ethnicit Somorja: Europe’s

FCN the

Farim Political

Nation- Polic y Tabajdi ia.”

Patten. U Ethnic

et Rights ics Polic

Mária round sition to

se New

M.” and

all. the

y] 71 ah in of In of of in y y .

CEU eTD Collection Weller Vizi Vizi Törnquist- Toggenburg Toggenburg Tabajdi Szabóm Sógor 2009 Philippson Skutnabb- Rubio- Phillips 2009 2007 2008 Marín 2003 2009 2009 ihál Kanga Plewa 2000 1995 y 2009 2004 i 2007 s &

Language Rubio-Marín, Temesvár [Language International [ ny Szabómihá EU-G Romania. Sógor, H Alan Patten. EU-Ground Ltd., The Phillips, fén Vizi, Universit Europe Eastern Törnquist- Ltd., Minorities Minorities: Toggenburg, 2004. European Toggenburg, Regions Intergroup of Contradict Tabajdi, Tove Europe Weller, Tabajdi. After Vizi, Szórván rights internat Minorit uman Rights

el Europe yé

vpol FCN 2009.162-205.

Skutnabb-KangasandRobert

be Balázs. round Ltd., Enlarge

Balázs.

. Ne and ional

C n.”

andRegional y EU-G eds.

y Marc, itika Alan. Central y Alapítván M.” saba. ”

:

Language Csaba. Szórván ions Pres Plewa,

Rights

l Union:

w York:Palgrave Unite!

y of In of Oxford:Universit

rights [Languages a language i

Barbour,

“ Gabriel

men

a

law.] in . Ne

Gizella. Ruth. Minorit

round Ltd.,

Minorities “ Documen Europe “Minorities Traditiona

Gabriel Play s, 2000.183-220. of ed. “ relevéns A

Minorities Intercultura 2009.474-482. 2009.282-285.

Europe.” and

t.”

European w York:Walter

Barbara.

(Stud

y ny “ T The y, and

Sisy Alapítván In he

Rights “

in In 2007.19-34.

el Languages.)

N Exploring y

Polit

Stephen “A

vi polic

Unite!

.

Nyelvi Rights y W

Protection ts.] Minorities phus

Three language nemz N Minority

l, rights

2009.216-223.

of ay book

kisebbségi szlovákiai .

ical in

of

in National In l “

y

Minorit Macm

Europe

Constructing ],

an

In

Forwa “The

Education y etközi Europe

Slovakia y

in ed. in

and T P

Language jogok, ,

Parts

for 2007.45-68. of the ed. Ever heory

ress, 2003.52-79

deGruy the

Nyelvi

EU-G

Philippson,eds. Protection

Csaba the

illan, policy of

y Cathie of

m

the rd

Competing

dokumentu EU’s U

“

Bodó, kisebbslgi

Minorities, Protection.” inorit

Wider Unite! j , New” and Europe . Minorities nite! ogok

nyelvpol

in eds.

25 Budapest: 2008. European round Ltd.,

and ],

te

the

jogok, Tabajdi. and th Carmi

Ethnic ies

an

r,

Will ed. Attitude EU ed. European anniversar

Barna.

ed. 1995. a

and its Light

Unite!

itika O

in

nemzetkö Nationalism

mo

n

Csaba Rational

Member

Csaba

chael. pen

ye Bodó,

Challenges K

Constitutiona

in In the

Nationalis the nyelvpolit

k Linguistic LGI ym

lv 2009.

Union—the EU-G

of

[Language Minorities

the Te tükrében.”

i

ed.

Enlarged End.”

li

Relevant Union—

j y vis-á-vis Tabajdi. Tabajdi. light

ogok ck Oxford: mesvár:

Book es.”

Barna. zi Wi of Csaba States round a

der and

j the ika

m: 72 og in In In of és in s, l

CEU eTD Collection Grabbe 1999 De Witte De Varennes2001 De Varennes2004 Daftar Bíró Benedikter Balla Bakker Arzor 2007 Amato Arti Wright cles 2008 1999 y &Batt 2000 1998 &Gál2000 2000 & Studies 2006 1998 iew&id=10431&Item http://www.felvidek. and Bíró http://www.gfbv.it/3dossier/eu- Bozen, 30November of Benedikter, http://www.hhrf.org/kisebbsegkutat Minorities sion Bakker, A (JEMIE Journal Policy Enlargem Amato (Chapters: Language Wright, n/ed http://www.eu Language” Fernand European European Impl Grabbe, European Ethnic De Papers Language.” De http://www.ecm September Law: Daftary rzoz.pdf

Varennes,

Witte, Minority s in Language minl

ica Ágnes.

Internal Papers No.4.Budapest:

Balla, A http://www.iue.it , tions theSlovak )

Minorities Giuliano

ang Edwin.

rzor, Sue. Farim D Universit Universit on ent

Research 1,2,3).Frankfurt: Bruno.

Heather. 2000 in

e 6/2007, ( (

accessed on1April Applicants

accessed on30October Thom

Constitutional

“

Varennes, Fernand. to

Nations of

Ethnopolit 1998/5; Protection Szlovákia map.org

or Relations Community Kál ah Xabier.

i.de

the

( “ EU

external

accessed on1October “ Gro as. and and .” mán. Republic.” Politics y y

/download/working_p

1/1999. In In ma East.”

2006 2.

id=1

“ wing Conditional “ EUI

State /journal/fea

.” A

Kinga Minorities stitute, stitute,

„ /ind

O J

/RSCAS/WP- “ ics nelvi, A Guide ud in

“The The “ http://ec

in

pen

Politics?” New

(

EUI Ver y Partnership

Slovakia]. ex.php?option=com

European and Isolation: W accessed on1October &

Building (

and

M Europe—an

S accessed on15Ma 1999/12. 2000/4. Gál. Batt.

orking Right

Helsinki sus nemz min/ Legal 2009) ociet

Nature

ultil

Language Co

mi it W to tures/2004/

in Minority Law y “The

as/m the autono 2008 orking mmunication.

ingual .de etiség “M

y

to ECMI

Europe.

for In and Texts/98_05p.htm ( Political Policy Universit Papers Monitor accessed

/jem

inorit Education in 2005) r_01/ Rights

stitute of

Ne for ) aper_8.pdf

the i MattersLTD, the m European overview.”

ie viszon

w W y Language Act Paper

mi y

Issues cikk.php?id=1178

/download/2-

.

- Institute

orking Legal EU’s Central 2001. eu.htm

A Slovak

of _cont y and nori

Rights San 1/1998. on y ccession?:

2009) Minorities Institute:

ya in 2008)

s and The

1 t

. Approach

Ethnic

y_ i”

Instruments

ent& in Integration l Domeni May Paper

Slovakia.”

Language ed

[National Florence: and

(COLPI) Bolzeno/

Minorit 23-36. and

Role Rights.” 2000. Europe uca task=v

2007- 2009)

Ten- RSC

East

# tio and EU

the co:

73 of to 8, y

CEU eTD Collection Szabóm Szabóm Schöpflin Sasse 2005 Puskás 1997 Pék 2009 Pákozd Neville MP Katus 1993 Johns 2003 Jané 2001 Hughes &Sasse2003 Green 1987 A 1996 2004 y ihál ihál 2008 1996 y y i i 2009 2006 Hughes, 52571CD00721CE3/$FILE/oslj- http://osgoode. Hall Green, in Puskás, As Republic Pék, miskol 2008, of Pákozd 1-15. Religion- Neville http://www.unhcr.org/refworld Remarks Language Minorit 4/1993. Act. nem Katus Politi Union, Micheal Papers Linguistic Jané, Minority Protection Monitors: körn Szabóm 2009 Office: in Szabóm Central Schöpflin, W Translating Sasse, EstoniaandSlovakia. orking the

sociation Slovakia.” zet L

ye )

László. To cs

Neus

European aw Journal http://www.cie

László. c.hu/~wwwdrint/20081pakoz1.h 39-49.

ze

2/2001.

iségi and y, G

y & Eastern Leslie. D

ihál ihál http://www.epa.oszk.hu/00000/00036/00016 Tünde.

Paper .” Issue

t

Mark. Johns.

wendol

Linking the unajká C on Societies

Protection U James

áttekin Eastern saba. Oliveras. Law y y ofH George. Rights

in

EU

NHCR Ref i i törvény “ the the ,

Anniversary

Comments ( s in

y “Egy Gizella. 1-17. accessed s Gizella. Prepared “

the European

or Language 16,2005.

Are

yn U “

ungarian

“Europe: Streda/Dunaszerdahel

“

and , 4/1987,25.639-669. “D Implem Enlargem tése.” Europe(JEMIE ku. diversity nion” Tendencies Copenhagen and

.

, 4/200317,682-699. Europe.”

in

o CEECs.”

kisebbségi

“

Language ca/osg me “A “ évfordulójára,”

EU As The

A

the

European “

world,

spects n.org/

Miskolc

G “ s

[The Budapest: sociation Language on en

Teachers for on

A

and

wendol

Conditionali

I Policies .” Main of ent med tat

Minorities. Rights

sa 30

the szlovákiai

Tran

Dialogue

Mercator me ion 1996.(accessedon11Ma of Minorit the y, /docid

Legal

Journal

of ia.nsf/0/2890D1905BD5DB6A8 Rights

törvén Journal October v25.pdf

2nd Conditional Criterion Concepts rca Minorit Not yn

)

of sition

CEU,IRES1997/31.

1868.

in States.” 1/2003.1-30. Language ( as Polic tor/pdf/wp23eng.pdf MPA). of

/3ae6b32418.ht

State

the Slovakia,

Environ [The y Sasse. As Indicators

y y. tm

t

Fundamen

y

24/1996 +

Rights.” Ethnic Critical by születése.

y of

kisebbségi y

on

2005 ECRML—Educat Minority

I and (

Protection Cooperation and

in accessed Report

Birth

International into Do”:

Gramm Mercator it “

Ethnopolit

the The ment y

)

and “M Minority Language

2009.1-2.

http://www.uni-

Minorities

99-107.

East of Recognition and tal?” P Analyses

The

onitoring of

of

Slovak Az

olic

Act]. Ethnicit

a Nationalism of ml /pdf/07.pdf

on n

a

in the

ye

European

Language

1868.

European y

, Osgoode Minority

Minority Minorit Work ics 30

.” the

lv

y

2/2004,

Rights:

Slovak Law Rights 2009) Régió

i

April

State

ion.”

y

Law EUI and and jogi

and ing the évi

74 of in 5, y ,

CEU eTD Collection Agenda 1997 Reports Wilkens Vizi Várad Várad Tsilevich Topidi Toggenburg Szentiván Szarka 2001 y y 2003 1999 1995 1997 2004 2009 y i 2009 2000 nia/sn-op_en.pdf http://ec. 15 J A Language. n Szarka, Dunajká Streda/Dunaszerdahel Language Wilkens, Kisebbségkutatás European Vizi ek&lapid=4& http://www.jakabff Collect Várad 19/1997. Reflect Várad http://www.eu EUMAP National Tsilevich, http://www.ec Issues Rights Topidi, http:// Vol. 4/2000, (its) Delicate Toggenburg, 101. of Minorities: Szentiván m http://www. /0/7/2/4/2 http://www.all Explaining ye pplicat

Europe lv ul

Minorities.” Balázs. i eiop.or.a y y, y,

in

j ive ions 1997(accessedon15ma A

ogok in

Journal, K ion

europa.eu 8-54.

genda

Europe Tibor. Tibor. László. Relationship /p72428_index.h y Erika.

Rights]. yr

Minorities: Language

i,

Unite!

Slovakia.”

Rights Boris. forMembership N mtak the iaki. 16.1-25.( of

Union K

ew István. “ cikk=m mi map.org Gabriel acade t/e Az

elet- 2000-Comm

the

Double-

.de/je “M i.hu/docs/

iop/tex “M Opportunities—Old 1/2003. “A 2/2001, 2001.

“

ed.Csaba European /enlarg

Európai The y. “

( Közép- “ in mi inorit Y accessed on30April Államn inorities, EU

ro Rights

960304.ht “European ugoslav kollektív

: mi

/journal/fea

c. /m Journal and

O

N accessed on30Septe Slovakia] te/2000- Lim Standard”. The com

e/download pportunities, . em 1-36. y ag 275-287. Enlargem

tm cd2/tanu Európában”

“ Protections y U y ofminori

its Tabajdi. en oftheEuropean

A /m e l ar

Integration ission European nió

lv the Ma t/arch

y Case.”

kis

(

et ml of , , Rough accessed on 016a.htm j 2009.1-39.

y

ogok a/

Integration tures/2001/o ebbseg/ind és

jorities, 2009)

hivatalos p_m

EU

lm O Gramm ent (accessed Ethnopolitics

ives/pdf/dwn/op /Focus1-

Rights

a EU-Ground pinion Challenges.” an ties].1999.

Human

M [State la kisebbségek

Conditionali kérdéséről” in y and Orientation Union`s on

2009 _apa_rese / yt

Online

02 an a Law, hs, 15

onSlovenia’s

mber _Szarka_

ex.php?action=ci UnionDOC/97/19,

2003_Topidi.pdf

the

Language, Language Enlarging and ny

ct/eu on )

November of Rights and Source: el

and 2005 Paper Endeavors

Ltd., 5 v—kisebbségi Protection and

Protection arch_ci enlarg In

t

April inions/slove jogai” y Minorities]. [About Through Pro

Laszlo.ht :

Minorities

Ethnicit Quarterly

) Minority 2009.90- s Minority

Europe: spects.” Official e Office: (EIoP

tat

2009) 2005

[The

ion

the

for m

75

of of y a ) ) :

CEU eTD Collection MINERLES—Director Mercator—Lingu Hungarian Forum European European EurLex—Access Depart Council As As Internet AC Opinion(Y) EUMA EC EC sociation sociation ReportonRoman ReportonSlovakia Minorit ment P (Y) http://www.cie http://www.r http://www.foru http://www.eblul.org http://www.dri.gov.ro/ http:// http://www.sz http://ec. http://eur- ofthe http:// Bureau Com Pages Teacher’s forInterethnic ofC ofH en.csango.ro/ europa.eu European y mission Research europa.eu sángó- ungarian toEuropean lex.europa.eu/en/ forLesser-U istic mpsz.ro/web/ A mpsz.sk ia RightsandLegislat me er (Y) y (Y) ssociation H minst.sk/ /european- U ofResourcesonMinorit ofMultilingual ungarians n.org/ Teachers In /com

Relations—Ro nion: / stitute ast_enlargem http://ec. Towards Acces Regular Table_en.asp http://www.coe.in Minorities, Advisory Open Societ protection. EUMA ts_en.ht http:// Towards Accession(accessed Regular

Unionlaw:

sed Languages: mi me Presidency

ofRoman ssion_b rca council/index_ index.ht (Slovakia): inMoldavia: in ec.europa. P -Monitoring m tor/ind Reportfrom Reportsfrom Slovakia: europa.eu Comm

Country State ism arroso/orban/ y ion: ma m en Institute. Conclusions: ia: ex- : sion

ts/eu10/slovak nian eu/en

Reports(accessed it

gb.htm t/t te

/enlarg reportsonSlovakia (accessedonApril en.htm e y /dghl/ G theCom ofthe Human large theCom the overn

http://www.eu index_en.ht em EUaccessionprocess:m mo me

F ment: en nitor Rights: ra nt/ onDecember mission ia_en.h t/arch mission mework archives/ro ing/m onApril2009). ives/en m

tm onSlovakia’sProgress http://www.m map.org onRomani 2009) Convention and in

orit ma large 2008) Romania. ies/3_FCNMdocs/

/reports ni a/ke me

a’s

inorit nt_process/p inelres.lv onNational y Progre _d Budapest: ocu y

me ss

76

n

CEU eTD Collection 167. and Source: Table Source: Table Source: Table Source: Table Source: Table Source: Table Source: Table B/tab11 Source: Table Appendic Web- Via MRG—World director anopenend.” N j 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 ova Ifjú ournals ofHungarian .pdf Both: Roman Slovakia: http://www.ics.sk/cikk Minorit http://www.ics.sk/ indigenous- http://www. http://www. http://www. Toggenburg,Gabriel Datataken providedb providedb h http://www.hhrf.org/xantusz/erd http://www.radiopatri http://ww2.hu/Tar ttp: es //po

w sági ia: y ww.hhrf.hu rta Reports-Monthl

w w l.s Csoport—YouthOrganization In out y y peoples.htm ww.bumm minori mine mine ww.manna.ro tat the the

Minorities ist from y Gramm Gramm ofMinorities lres.lv/Na lres.lv/Na ics

t talo yr . .sk/f Comm

ig http://ada N.“TheEU’ .sk a.sk/m ek/m m/ hts.org/744 ile l ofEuropeUnite! a a ; Im ; s/Sekc Language Language

w y tional tional ww uni in Bulletin ag ww.felvidek.m ag orit es/szlovaki and w.erdel ties tbank.tr y ie/s Legisl Legisl a y el r_ in - /dire IndigenousPeople: ek_600/De y. report s atti index.php?page= Office,Slovakia Office,Slovakia onthe Slovakia gi y ansindex.ro ation ation f ctor .m

tude

ofthe a_terk a ed.CsabaTabajdi. ; y a H /Slovaki /Rom ww /w vis-á- ; mografia/SODB/Tabulk ungarian ww andRomani orld- ep560.jpg Slovakian w.kronika.ro an w.uj

vis minorit ia/ro director a/slovaki mag szo.co Com ma y

HungarianPart ar a: nia.h y- mun m _hu_fr ; a.ht EU-G ies: of-minori ww . tm it m a w.fig y

play inSlovakia: y ekvenci round Ltd., /T abulk ye ties- in lo threeparts y ak .ro y and- ( _A MKP): . 2009. J_ SOD 77

CEU eTD Collection The Table A p p number e 1. n d i c ofHungarian e s population in Slovakiaand initsregions 78 CEU eTD Collection (according The Table (according Share Table The rate division ofH 3. 2. insettle ofmin. to to ungarian 80-100% 50-100% 20-100% 10-100% ofH thecensus2001): thecensus men ungarians, inhabitant nationali ts 1991) Ruthenians, t y : b y district Hungarians 216 410 501 526 U ofthe krainians SlovakRepublic Ruthenians andRoma N umb 146 20 83 - er ofsettlem andtheir U krainian en 17 settlem 6 - - ts en ts

Roma 158 54 5 - 79 CEU eTD Collection school apprentice and V school technical Secondary school gramm (academ Secondary school Elem school* Ty state ma technica 15/16); school Education s *The of instruction The Table yst ocationa pe y em number

schools,private continue ofthe entar

minori 4.

ar

education: secondar and l ic)

schools y l

in

ofschools/classes/chi t as

(y y

children classes schools children classes schools children classes schools children classes schools N Slovakia until

umb educationa s ea y uch

r (age education for

2004,source: the er

schools,andchurch is

of 2/3

is 15–18),

age characteriz

compulsor l to 132,309 5223 332 83,478 2,957 256 93,560 3,104 186 518,249 23,868 2070 Slovak

of s :

yst 6 Secondary

17,

ye em V D

ocationa ar ldren 18

ed ohán - in y old

or

95.7 94.8 97.1 95.37 94.62 97.71 93.81 92.63 79.49 93.32 92.07 88.39 (%) until b Slovakia with

y

yo The language 19, children); (academ schools.

l the s

and et age depending Slovak,Hungarianand

H al.2005: same

ungarian 36249 apprentic 16. is 3.997 5,991 1984 5954 ic) 164 237 297 288 31 25 25

an Ele

T gram features

yp ofinstruction organic men

on 128–134) es e ma

8.85 4.57 5.25 9.54 6.01 7.07 10.68 6.53 7.65 12.68 (%) 4.3 5.2 the

tar of schools r

y as

schools the t part

yp (primar

the

e 0 58 4 1 135 6 1 466 45 8 nian U 0 0 schools:

of of krai Ruthenian (begins

Slovak

(age school). the y )

0 0.07 0.13 0.38 0.14 0.18 0.43 0.08 0.17 0.34 (%) 0 0

schools

Slovak 15–18), Kindergarten

at majorit

asa the Also, 0 0 0 0 52 4 29 371 27 4 Other 0 0

educationa (for age

Secondary language y

there

s 15 age yst 0 0 0 0 0.05 0.12 12.39 0.07 0.10 0.17 (%) 0 0

(pre-

em and

are 6– 80

l .

CEU eTD Collection (Red: Pátria Pátria Table inpreparation; Rádió Rádió

5. coverage coverage Blue: area area recent -withultra- -withmediu coverage) s m hort wavetransm wavetransmi itt ers: tters: 81 CEU eTD Collection Ethnica Table (according Hungarian Table 7. 6. Year 2002 1992 1977 1966 1956 1941 1930 1920 1910 1900 l composi population to thecensus Total 358 210 548 581 525 459 446 445 402 379 389 tion

671 591 327 250 473 142 757 688 018 ofthe inRoman 1992) Hungarians counties 91,23% 80,23% 80,92% 82,56% 85,19% 85,49% 89,60% 82,82% 85,02% 90,70% : ia: Hargitha/Hargita R om 13,36% 17,79% 17,80% 15,94% 14,16% 12,79% 8,72% 13,75% 8,14% 8,00% ania

ns

andCovasna/Kovászna: R 1,79% 1,11% 1,28% 0,31% 1,11% 1,43% om ? ? ? ? a Ger 0,06% 0,08% 0,11% 0,11% 0,18% 0,24% 0,46% 0,27% 0,66% 0,45% ma ns Others 0,12% 0,09% 0,11% 0,24% 0,42% 1,44% 1,53% 1,35% 0,49% 0,32% 82 CEU eTD Collection ETHNOS, cited Source: The Table Europe 3. 2. 1. The EUandits enlargement EUanditsethnic Phases of E EU-25 2004 EU-15 2003 8. U-27 2007 (39States) ChristophPan/Beata

inToggenburg minorit Inhabitants 768.698 480.190 450.559 375.418 In 2005 S ies: . Pfeil 2009,167. (2003),National A bsolute of minori Minorities 329 187 156 73 number ties Minorities 86,674.000 mino Member In 1000 42.306 38.174 32.138 of inEurope, rities s s

Vienna, population mino Share of on total 11,45 in 8,5. 8,6. 8,8 % rities

83