The European Convention on Human Rights and Language Rights: Is the Glass Half Empty or Half Full?

Debates on language rights as integral elements of human rights have gathered momentum since the early 1990s. International organisations such as the Council of Europe (CoE) and the United Nations (UN) have advocated linguistic rights through various charters and conventions, albeit with wavering levels of success. This article focuses specifically on the European context and the manner in which the CoE has dealt with language rights in the continent. The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the European Charter for Regional and Minority languages (ECRML) and the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (FCPNM) are discussed in light of the region’s contemporary linguistic makeup. Current inequalities in the application of language recognition provide an area of special concern. For example, while speakers of ‘indigenous’ (or autochthonous) minority languages have apparently enjoyed an improving status in recent decades, the position of immigrant (or allochthonous) languages is less clear and current approaches largely ignore linguistic diversity which has been brought by recent mass migration patterns, leading to a somewhat exclusionary system. Through the discussion possible pathways for better inclusion of immigrant languages within current international frameworks, especially those of the CoE, are explored.

Download Full-text

Language, education and the European Convention on Human Rights in the twenty-first century

Legal Studies ◽

10.1111/j.1748-121x.2002.tb00672.x ◽

2002 ◽

Vol 22 (4) ◽

pp. 625-650 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Katherine Williams ◽

Bernadette Rainey

Keyword(s):

Human Rights ◽

Language Education ◽

First Century ◽

European Convention ◽

Language Rights ◽

Wide Margin ◽

European Court ◽

Margin Of Appreciation ◽

Highly Sensitive ◽

Controversial Area

In the Belgian Linguistic case the European Court of Human Rights held that legislation regarding language in education which was based on the principle of territoriality did not offend against the rights guaranteed in Article 2 of Protocol 1 or Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, whether taken alone or in conjunction with Article 14 on non-discrimination. That ruling was given some 35 years ago, and this paper considers whether developments since then might lead the European Court of Human Rights to decide similar issues differently if they arose today. However, having considered the situation, including instruments which have been adopted specifically to deal with language rights and minority rights, the conclusion is reached that the European Court of Human Rights would be likely to continue to allow a fairly wide margin of appreciation to states in the highly sensitive and controversial area of language rights and how they should be protected.

Download Full-text

Standardy należytego uzasadnienia w świetle orzecznictwa Trybunału Konstytucyjnego i Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka

Studia Prawnicze / The Legal Studies ◽

10.37232/sp.2014.4.2 ◽

2014 ◽

pp. 33-48

Author(s):

Przemysław Florjanowicz-Błachut

Keyword(s):

European Union ◽

Human Rights ◽

Due Process ◽

Case Law ◽

Fair Trial ◽

Fundamental Rights ◽

European Convention ◽

European Court ◽

Judicial Reasoning ◽

The Right

The core function of the judiciary is the administration of justice through delivering judgments and other decisions. The crucial role for its acceptance and legitimization by not only lawyers, but also individulas (parties) and the hole society plays judicial reasoning. It should reflect on judge’s independence within the exercise of his office and show also judicial self-restraint or activism. The axiology and the standards of proper judicial reasoning are anchored both in constitutional and supranational law and case-law. Polish Constitutional Tribunal derives a duty to give reasoning from the right to a fair trial – right to be heard and bring own submissions before the court (Article 45 § 1 of the Constitution), the right to appeal against judgments and decisions made at first stage (Article 78), the rule of two stages of the court proceedings (Article 176) and rule of law clause (Article 2), that comprises inter alia right to due process of law and the rule of legitimate expactation / the protection of trust (Vertrauensschutz). European Court of Human Rights derives this duty to give reasons from the guarantees of the right to a fair trial enshrined in Article 6 § 1 of European Convention of Human Rights. In its case-law the ECtHR, taking into account the margin of appreciation concept, formulated a number of positive and negative requirements, that should be met in case of proper reasoning. The obligation for courts to give sufficient reasons for their decisions is also anchored in European Union law. European Court of Justice derives this duty from the right to fair trial enshrined in Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. Standards of the courts reasoning developed by Polish constitutional court an the European courts (ECJ and ECtHR) are in fact convergent and coherent. National judges should take them into consideration in every case, to legitimize its outcome and enhance justice delivery.

Download Full-text