Székely Nép, 2010 (46. évfolyam, 59-60. szám)
2010-03-01 / 59. szám
the steeple, but only that it must be placed above the entrance of the building. We showed the photographs. They were insisting on the steeple. There could not have been infraction, since the flag is above the entrance even, if the Romanian public opinion is of different opinion. We were not talking about hurting a national symbol, only about what the law demands concerning the flag. They were talking only about the fact that the flag was taken down from the town hall, but they could not prove that it must be placed on the steeple, for the law does not require it. To take it down is not unlawful. It is true that the law in those days prescribed that in official documents the Romanian city name must be used. In our case the name of Sepsiszentgyorgy was not in the text, but on the letterhead next to the Romanian city name, signifying that it was issued by the city. We proved that in the city of (Timisoar) the Hungarian city name was also present, and the prefect would not put a penalty on it. We had an other legal argument that was the most effective. According to Romanian laws the protocol must contain the date of the flag taking. In lack of it, the protocol is not valid. The decision declared that a protocol that does not describe the date of the supposed infraction is not valid. It does not refute the arguments brought against it, yet a response is obligatory. THE COMPREHENSIVE IMPORTANCE OF THE CASE The decision in Strasbourg is based on both conceptual and formal reasoning this is important for us as we are striving to achieve equal rights. First, from now on in Romania no unjust laws can be promulgated under the certainty that the Western courts will not interfere. Second, we can be assured that in matters of minority rights we will be supported by international legal protection. No such case was successfully adjudicated since the end of the II. World War. This is the first legal victory in the county of Háromszék (Covasna). But in all the regions inhabited by Hungarians this was the first decision in favor of our Hungarian minority. The court inferred in its decision that an injustice committed in our acknowledged human rights is considered a violation of law. This was declared by the European Union's Court of Human Right. One of the three judges was Romanian. OTHER COURT CASES The Chango-Hungarian Society in Moldova wanted to reintroduce in the schools the teaching of the Hungarian language. The government was not only against the teaching of the Hungarian language but also the dissolution of the Chango-Hungarian Society also. We tried to prove that what is happening there cannot be considered regular schooling. Since the teaching of Hungarian was not allowed in the schools, it was merely a spare time activity. There were no class periods, no school marks. It could not be considered a legally approved education. Yet the constitution assures that everyone can do whatever it wants during ones spare time. We won this case at both the county and the supreme court. Neither the Hungarian teaching nor the Society could be abolished. The Háromszék Dancing Group was taken to court for singing a song that was hurtful for some ears. Not wanting to create a political issue, they were fined not for the song but because there were no stamps on the cassettes. We could not deny that there were no stamps, only that they had not enough time to put on the stamps. We suggested to the court that the Group should be warned that if they miss the stamps the next time, they would be penalized. Our argumentation was excepted. The penalty of two Hundred Million leis would have bankrupted the only Hungarian Dancing Group in the county with very severe repercussions. As a result of sound legal argumentation, the Hungarian-Chango Society, the Hungarian Education of the Chango children and the Hungarian Dancing Group are still functioning. Page 4
