Hungarian American Coalition News, 2009 (17. évfolyam, 1. szám)
2009 / 1. szám
The following three legal analyses on selected key aspects of the Slovak Language Law make reference to specific paragraphs of the Law. The full text of the Slovak Language Law can be found at: http://www.hacusa.org/languagelaw/slovaklanguagelaw.html THE OBLIGATIONS OF NATURAL PERSONS, AND THE SCOPE FOR THEIR SUPERVISION AND SANCTIONING [...] the Slovak official position argues that the Law does not sanction the free use of language by individuals. We should evaluate this position by considering the following: Based on the Law, the free use of the native language may be sanctioned in five ways: two of which are monetary penalties (one fine is to be paid by the workplace and the second one by the natural person), two other sanctions take the form of harassment on the part of authorities, and one is the denial of access to public services in one’s native language. The obligations of the Law do apply to natural persons. (§1/5/) According to the provisions of section §3 121, state organizations and legal persons, transport and communications companies, employees of the postal service, members of the armed services (i.e. police) and firefighters - who are natural persons - must use the state language in their official contacts. Section §9a specifies that the Ministry of Culture is mandated to issue a warning to these institutions in case of violation, and to enforce sanctions should any lapse occur. This means that the Law imposes sanctions upon the free use of language on the part of natural persons (as, for instance, the exchange of information between a Hungarian bus driver and a Hungarian-speaking passenger), but the sanctions are the financial responsibility of the workplace. It is obvious that the employer will make the employee absorb any ensuing damages to the workplace, either in the form of financial responsibility or by otherwise curbing the employee’s livelihood (i.e. job loss or job transfer, which in the high unemployment area of South Slovakia is a particularly severe sanction), which means that the provisions of the Law unequivocally affect (also) natural individuals. (In practice, it is obvious that after the warning from the Ministry, the employer will in turn penalize the use of the native language by the employee to avoid further penalties). It is a de facto fine imposed on natural persons speaking their native language that the additional costs associated with bilingual interactions - even retroactively! (§11 and 1 la) - are borne by those who use the language, among them natural persons. (Even though the Law does not cover the non-retroactive expenses of bilingual interactions, it is obvious, particularly in view of sections §11 and 1 la, that in all cases the expenses will be borne by those who use a language other than Slovak). This is the de facto sanctioning of the use of native language, including by natural persons. Moreover, it is a sanction that is imposed for an “infringement” taking place prior to the law’s enactment, which is entirely contrary to the rule of law. Section §2 /l/ provides that municipalities are “obligated to take an active role” in enforcing the provisions of the law. (True, in this capacity, they are not under the supervision of the Ministry of Culture). This constitutes a license to harass natural persons under the guise of the Language Law, which particularly affects citizens - as natural persons - who live in an absolute minority situation, and once again amounts to a sanction against the free use of the native language by natural persons. The Ministry of Culture may conduct checks upon natural persons (§9 III, Hi). Although it cannot require (§9 131) their cooperation, it can “request” (§9 121) such cooperation. (In the case of entrepreneurs, the Ministry may “require” it: see §9131). This gives the Ministry of Culture the possibility for the official harassment of natural persons. The already mentioned provision §3 121 also penalizes natural persons for freely using their native language, by denying public services if they use their native language. (For example, according to the letter of the law, if someone asks for a given service in Hungarian in a post office, even from a Hungarian-speaking employee, service cannot be provided, because the communication did not take place in the Slovak language). * *** * POSITIVE DISCRIMINATION TOWARDS THE CZECH LANGUAGE The other openly discriminatory principle of the State Language Law - besides the primacy of the Slovak language - is the distinctive treatment of the Czech language. This preferential treatment, according to the text of the Law, is warranted because the Czech language is basically understandable by speakers of the state language. The minority language law in §6 provides that the use of the Czech language is equivalent to communication in the state language, except in cases in which this would conflict with the Slovak Republic’s international obligations. However, this provision of the minority language law is no longer in effect as of September 1, 2009, because it is superseded by the modifications to the State Language Law, which allow even greater latitude for the use of the Czech language. The Law’s §3 (5) makes the Czech language essentially equal in standing with the Slovak language, and obliges Hungarian American Coalition - September 2009 - 5
