Hungarian American Coalition News, 2009 (17. évfolyam, 1. szám)
2009 / 1. szám
LANGUAGE USE AMONG THE HUNGARIAN MINORITY OF SLOVAKIA IN LIGHT OF THE MONITORING REPORT OF THE EUROPEAN CHARTER FOR REGIONAL OR MINORITY LANGUAGES Lecture by Dr. Péter Kovács Up to the present, Slovakia has undergone only the first monitoring cycle. In her case, the Report of the Committee of Experts was prepared in 2007. Let us examine what were the determinations made in that report regarding the use of language among the Hungarian minority. The most salient aspect of the Report of the Committee of Experts (Committee) on the first report of the Slovak Government is that it repeatedly criticizes the so-called 20% threshold for the use of minority language, and the dangers posed by the effects of the State Language Law. The Committee emphasized that the 20% rule cannot and should not be a rigid, cast-in-stone regulation, and, above all, it cannot be an obstacle to the implementation of the obligations assumed in the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, (Charter) where the presence of a significant Hungarian community, by virtue of its existence and its requirements, justify securing the protection of the minority language. The Committee’s report concerning the implementation of the requirements of the Charter criticizes practically all points of implementation of the Slovak governments’ report. With regard to other points, the report states that there is not enough information to decide if the obligations have been met or not. Regarding the 20% threshold - from the Hungarian perspective - the report focused on the obstacles faced by the Hungarian minority in public administration matters. The Committee found only partial fulfillment of the use of language obligations in secondary and vocational schools, requesting additional information in areas such as adult education, and with respect to Hungarian history and culture. The report also found shortcomings in the whole spectrum of Hungarian language teacher training. The Committee objected that in the area of administration of justice, where interpretation into Hungarian is only made available if the individual does not speak Slovak adequately, and regrettably the same situation applies to the acceptability of Hungarian language documents and to court hearings as well. Similarly, civil juridical procedures were criticized on grounds that the option of using the Hungarian language is linked to the poor knowledge of the Slovak language, and contrary to assumed obligations, translation costs are added to the expense of the judicial procedure, and the translation of official documents to Hungarian constitutes an added private expense (not funded by the state). Based on the above, the obligations related to the use of language in the administration of justice should be regarded as either non-existent or, at most, only partially met, with the exception that Hungarian-language documents in civil procedures are accepted as valid. The Committee found that civil servants are not encouraged at all in the use of the Hungarian language. Even if there is evidence of actual use of Hungarian between contacts of citizens and civil servants, this cannot be generally regarded as typical even in settlements with a proportion exceeding 20%. The submission of Hungarian-language documents is allowed only in settlements of over 20%, which happens rather infrequently. At the same time, according to the Slovak legal framework, this is not allowed at the regional level. It is contrary to the obligations of the Charter, that at most, only in settlements with over 20% proportion are municipal resolutions published in Hungarian and only in a summarized format. It is also unacceptable that in the meetings of municipal bodies, representatives may use the Hungarian language only if all those present approve it. The Committee noted that, although the government has informed them that public services are available in Hungarian for settlements with a population exceeding 20% minority residents, this has been formally excluded by the provisions of the Slovak State Language Law. The fact that the government has received no complaints regarding this does not constitute compliance with the obligation. There is also no information on government actions in the interest of hiring Hungarian-speaking civil servants, language training in Hungarian to civil servants who are not Hungarian speakers in the 20% settlements (even for those below the threshold, if warranted by the number of residents). The Slovak Language Law is without a doubt in direct violation of the assumed obligation to exclude any deterrent in the use of minority languages in the national legal system, official documents, labor contracts and technical material, and also in hospitals and in residences for seniors. Information is also lacking - not coincidentally - on how to counter society’s practices that deter the use of minority languages. We should mention that besides the above evaluation, Slovakia has presented in 2008 a second government report that is not public yet. Unfortunately it cannot be said that the use of Hungarian has widened in Slovakia, or that Slovak lawmaking has moved towards greater openness. On the contrary, it is evident that reverse tendencies dominate the policies of the current coalition government in Bratislava. * *** * Hungarian American Coalition - September 2009 - 7
