Ministers’ Deputies
    CM Documents

    CM(2009)193 15 December 20091
    ——————————————

    1075 Meeting, 20 January 2010
    10 Legal questions


    10.4b European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages –

    Fourth report of the Committee of Experts in respect of Hungary

    Item to be prepared by the GR-J on 14 January 2010

    ——————————————
    In accordance with Article 16 paragraph 3 of the Charter, the Committee of Experts of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages submits its fourth report on the application of the Charter in Hungary to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. The report contains proposals for recommendations to be addressed by the Committee of Ministers to Hungary. The Hungarian government has been given the opportunity to comment on the content, in accordance with Article 16 paragraph 3 of the Charter, but did not wish to do so.


CONTENTS

Chapter 1 Background information 3

Chapter 2 Conclusions of the Committee of Experts on how the State authorities

      have reacted to the recommendations of the Committee of Ministers
      RecChL(2007)4 4

Chapter 3 The Committee of Experts’ evaluation 5

Chapter 4 Findings and proposals for recommendations 27

    Chapter 1 Background information

    1.1 The ratification of the Charter by Hungary

    1. The Republic of Hungary signed the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (hereinafter referred to as “the Charter”) on 5 November 1992 and deposited its instrument of ratification (see Annex I) on 26 April 1995. The Charter entered into force in Hungary on 1 March 1998 and was published in the Official Gazette, Volume 1999, No. 34. In a declaration of 24 June 2008, the Government of the Republic of Hungary undertook, in accordance with Article 2.2 of the Charter, to apply provisions of Part III of the Charter in respect of the Romani and Beás languages.

    2. Article 15, paragraph 1 of the Charter requires States Parties to submit three-yearly reports in a form prescribed by the Committee of Ministers. The Hungarian authorities presented their fourth periodical report to the Secretary General of the Council of Europe on 22 January 2009.

    3. In its previous report (ECMRL(2007)5), the Committee of Experts of the Charter outlined particular areas where policies, legislation and practice could be improved. The Committee of Ministers took note of the report presented by the Committee of Experts and adopted recommendations (RecChL(2007)4), which were addressed to the Hungarian authorities.

    1.2 The work of the Committee of Experts

    4. The present report is based on the information obtained by the Committee of Experts from the fourth periodical report of Hungary as well as through interviews held with representatives of national minority self-governments in Hungary and governmental representatives during an on-the-spot visit (4 to 5 June 2009). This report is based on the policies, legislation and practice prevailing at the time of the on-the-spot visit. Any later changes will be taken into account in the next report of the Committee of Experts concerning Hungary.

    5. The Committee of Experts will firstly focus on the measures taken by the Hungarian authorities to respond to the recommendations addressed to the Hungarian government by the Committee of Ministers and then recall the outstanding issues raised in the third monitoring cycle regarding Hungary’s compliance with the provisions of Part II and Part III of the Charter. It will also highlight new issues detected during the fourth monitoring cycle.

    6. The fourth periodical report covers the period until the end of February 2008, i.e. before the extension of Part III protection to Romani and Beás took effect. In the present evaluation report, the Committee of Experts will consequently deal with these languages under Article 7.5 of the Charter.

    7. This report was adopted by the Committee of Experts on 11 September 2009.

    1.3 Presentation of the regional or minority language situation in Hungary: up-date

    8. The Committee of Experts has neither received new official data on the number of minority language users, nor updated estimates from bodies or associations legally established in Hungary.

    9. When ratifying the Charter, Hungary chose to apply the same undertakings in respect of all Part III languages. According to the fourth periodical report, the Hungarian authorities have consulted the national minority self-governments representing the (six original) Part III languages as to whether they wish stronger options to be applied to their languages. However, this consultation has not led to concrete results.

    Chapter 2. Conclusions of the Committee of Experts on how the Hungarian authorities have reacted to the recommendations of the Committee of Ministers RecChL(2007)4

    Recommendation no. 1:
    “take resolute measures in language planning for Romany and Beás with a view to starting effective teaching of and in these languages at all appropriate stages”

    10. In order to improve the training of Romani and Beás teachers, workshops for Romology training are currently being set up at several locations. The training aims to prepare students for educational and teaching research, planning and development tasks in public education, special education, adult training and PhD studies.

    11. Furthermore, the development of textbooks on Roma culture has begun. While books for grades 7-10 are already available, a development programme shall be designed for the preparation, in co-operation with the national minority self-government, of further textbooks (textbooks on Roma culture for grades 1-6 and 11-12, Romani and Beás language course books, workbooks, anthologies for grades 1-12).

    Recommendation no. 2:
    “improve the financial situation of minority language education and increase the stability of resourcing”

    12. In 2006, the budget line for minority language education was substantially increased (from 340 million HUF to 1100 million HUF). In addition, relevant studies taking place in the kin states became eligible for support in 2007.

    Recommendation no. 3:
    “actively promote the establishment of further bilingual schools at all stages of education with a view to moving from the model of only teaching the language as a subject to bilingual education in Part III languages, increase accordingly the number of teachers able to teach subjects in these languages, and set up the dedicated monitoring mechanism envisaged by Article 8, 1(i) of the Charter”

    13. Five additional schools have started bilingual education (two using Croatian and Slovenian respectively, one using German).

    14. The teacher training system has not changed. In order to improve the special language skills of teachers teaching general subjects in minority languages, the Hungarian authorities continue to support specialised further language training organised by higher educational institutions with minority departments and national minority self-governments. Three applications for further training in technical language were supported in 2006, two in 2007.

    15. There is no dedicated monitoring mechanism in conformity with Article 8, 1(i) of the Charter.

    Recommendation no. 4:
    “take steps to ensure that the relevant local and regional authorities (which the Hungarian authorities are urged to identify in accordance with the previous recommendation of the Committee of Ministers) implement the obligations under Article 10 of the Charter, and specify those judicial districts where measures have to be taken with regard to the obligations under Article 9 of the Charter”

    16. In order to identify the relevant regional and local authorities, the State Secretariat for Minority and National Policy addressed a letter to the national self-governments of minorities representing the Part III languages, requesting them to indicate in which regions and counties their communities have been traditionally present. Given that the request did not lead to concrete results, further steps to identify the relevant territories have been announced by the authorities.

    17. In addition, a Working Group on minority public law with the participation of the Hungarian authorities, the Parliamentary Commissioner for National and Ethnic Minority Rights, and the national minority self-governments will inter alia define the “historical settlements” inhabited by minorities. This is expected to facilitate the determination of the territories referred to in the recommendation.

    Recommendation no. 5:
    “improve the offer of minority language programmes in the media, in particular by allocating a suitable radio frequency as well as developing and financing a comprehensive scheme for the training of journalists and other media staff using minority languages”

    18. As of 1 February 2007, the minority language programmes of Magyar Rádió are broadcast on the new channel MR4 seven days a week. In the same year, Magyar Rádió expanded its previously 30-minute programme “Cigányfélóra” to a one-hour programme, broadcast on national channel M1. The programme uses Hungarian, Romani and Beás.

    19. As regards Magyar Televízió, the previous practice of taking the minority programmes off the screen on national and church holidays was cancelled. Magyar Televízió broadcasts the rerun of the minority programmes on channel M2 (on workdays, in the morning). However, they can only be received by satellite. An additional problem is the time slot of the minority programme (12.30 to 1.30 p.m. on workdays), which is considered unfavourable by the minority self-governments. The broadcasting time of the minority programmes on Magyar Televízió has not changed.

    20. No comprehensive scheme for the training of journalists and other media staff using minority languages has been developed during the reporting period. Nevertheless, Magyar Televízió launched a Roma television apprentice training programme in 2006 to which the Hungarian authorities have contributed financially.

    Recommendation no. 6:
    “improve the conditions for the transferral of educational and cultural bodies and institutions to minority self-governments”

    21. While the legal conditions for the transferral of educational and cultural institutions to minority self-governments have not changed during the reporting period, the total financial support for the take-over and maintenance of minority institutions dropped between 2006 and 2007. Only one educational institution was transferred to a national self-government (Slovaks). In addition, the Hungarian authorities supported the establishment of the Armenian Cultural, Documentation and Information Centre and the Ukrainian Cultural and Documentation Centre in Hungary in 2007.

    Chapter 3 The Committee of Experts’ evaluation

    3.1 The Committee of Experts’ evaluation in respect of Part II of the Charter

    22. With regard to the languages that are covered only by Part II of the Charter, the Committee of Experts considers that Ruthenian and Polish are territorial languages while Armenian, Beás, Bulgarian, Greek, Romani and Ukrainian are non-territorial languages in conformity with Article 1.c.

    23. The Committee of Experts will not comment on provisions in relation to which no major issues were raised in its third evaluation report and for which it did not receive any new elements requiring a revised assessment. Under Part II, this concerns Article 7 paragraphs 1.a; b; e; g; 3 and 4. The Committee of Experts reserves, however, the right to evaluate the implementation of these provisions again at a later stage.

    Article 7

    Paragraph 1

    In respect of regional or minority languages, within the territories in which such languages are used and according to the situation of each language, the Parties shall base their policies, legislation and practice on the following objectives and principles:

      ...

      c. the need for resolute action to promote regional or minority languages in order to safeguard them;

    24. In the third monitoring cycle, the Committee of Experts “urge[d] the authorities to take immediate steps to produce structured plans for the protection and promotion of [the Part II] languages.” Furthermore, the Committee of Ministers recommended Hungary to “improve the conditions for the transferral of educational and cultural bodies and institutions to minority self-governments.”

    25. In the context of general budget cuts in Hungary, the budgetary allocation for minority issues has significantly dropped. This has affected also the take-over and the maintenance of minority cultural institutions. Minority self-governments mostly establish new cultural institutions and apply for – and are granted – support from central funds for these institutions. No overall strategy and long-term planning exists for any of the 14 minority languages.

    The Committee of Experts strongly urges the Hungarian authorities to develop long-term strategies and structured plans for the preservation and promotion of each of the 14 minority languages.

      d. the facilitation and/or encouragement of the use of regional or minority languages, in speech and writing, in public and private life;

    Polish and Ruthenian/Administrative authorities
    26. In the previous monitoring cycles, the Committee of Experts considered that Ruthenian had a territorial basis in Múcsony and Komlóska and Polish had a territorial basis in Ládbesenyő. Therefore, the Committee of Experts urged the Hungarian authorities in the third evaluation report “to foster, as far as this is reasonably possible, the use of Polish and Ruthenian in relations with administrative authorities and public services in the municipalities where these languages are traditionally used.

    27. According to the fourth periodical report, however, no administrative authorities are located in Ládbesenyő and Komlóska. No information is available regarding Múcsony. The Committee of Experts notes that the legal possibility to use Polish and Ruthenian “in speech and writing at the public administration authority” (Act CXL (2004) on the General Rules of Official Proceedings and Service in Public Administration) is not applied in practice.

    Media
    28. The fourth periodical report contains updated information about the presence of the Part II languages in the media. Public service channel Magyar Rádió 4 broadcasts 30 minutes per week in Bulgarian, Greek, Polish, Ruthenian and Ukrainian respectively. The programme for the Armenian minority is also broadcast 30 minutes per week, but is bilingual (Armenian and Hungarian). In addition, MR4 expanded its previously 30-minute programme “Cigányfélóra” to a one-hour programme, broadcast five days a week. The programme uses mainly Hungarian and only to a very limited extent the Romani and Beás languages.

    29. Public service channel Magyar Televízió broadcasts a total of 78 minutes a month in Armenian, Bulgarian, Greek, Polish, Ruthenian and Ukrainian. The Committee of Experts learnt during the on-the-spot visit that plans of the Autonomy Channel of Duna TV to broadcast in all 14 minority languages, which were announced during the third monitoring cycle, have not materialised and are no longer pursued.

    30. There is also a programme for the Roma minority that uses Hungarian and to some extent Romani and Beás. Magyar Televízió launched a Roma television apprentice training programme in 2006. Central budget support of 10 million HUF has been provided for the implementation of the project. At the end of the 12-month course, four Roma may be recruited by Magyar Televízió.

    31. In the field of the print media, the Hungarian authorities support publications in Armenian (one bi-monthly), Bulgarian (one monthly), Greek (one quarterly), Polish (one monthly, one quarterly), Ruthenian (one monthly). Furthermore, the new quarterly “Glinda” for Roma children and youth, which has been on the market since 2007, is gradually increasing the use of Beás and Romani.

    Culture
    32. As far as the cultural field is concerned, the Hungarian authorities supported the establishment of an Armenian Cultural, Documentation and Information Centre and an Ukrainian Cultural and Documentation Centre in Hungary in 2007. The Committee of Experts commends the Hungarian authorities for their efforts in the field of minority culture.

      f. the provision of appropriate forms and means for the teaching and study of regional or minority languages at all appropriate stages;

    General issues
    33. In 2006, the budget line for minority language education was substantially increased (from 340 million HUF to 1,100 million HUF). The Committee of Experts welcomes this positive development. In addition, the Committee of Experts is pleased to note that the model of supplementary minority education is now successfully applied to the Bulgarian, Greek and Polish languages. Supplementary minority education covers the teaching at school of the minority language as well as the culture and civilisation reflected by this language. It does not require a minimum number of pupils.

    Romani and Beás
    34. In the third evaluation report, the Committee of Experts “encourage[d] the Hungarian authorities to continue and intensify the measures they have taken” to counter the incorrect enrolment of Roma/Gypsy children in classes for disabled or mentally handicapped pupils. The Committee of Experts will deal with this issue under Article 7.2 of the Charter.

    35. In the third evaluation report, the Committee of Experts “strongly urge[d] the Hungarian authorities to take immediate and resolute measures in language planning for Romani and Beás. The Hungarian authorities should, in particular, promote their codification, train more teachers who would be able to teach in these languages, actively encourage the teaching in/of Romani and Beás and produce the necessary teaching materials.” Furthermore, the Committee of Ministers recommended Hungary to “take resolute measures in language planning for Romany and Beás with a view to starting effective teaching of and in these languages at all appropriate stages.”

    36. According to the fourth periodical report, Romani is used in two kindergartens. Furthermore, it is taught in 14 primary schools as part of the curriculum and in one school as a post-curricular activity. Four secondary schools teach Romani. In higher education, Romani is taught at five universities and colleges. There is no Romani-medium education.

    37. Beás is taught in seven primary schools as part of the curriculum and in three schools as a post-curricular activity or during specialised classes. In addition, Beás is taught in one secondary school and at two universities. One secondary school uses Beás as the medium of instruction.

    38. In order to improve the training of Romani and Beás teachers, workshops for Romology training are currently being set up at several locations (University of Pécs, Teacher Training College Faculty of the University of Debrecen at Nyíregyháza, Apáczai Csere János Faculty of the University of Western Hungary, Tessedik Sámuel Training College for Teachers and Kindergarten Teachers and the University of Kaposvár). Furthermore, the amendment of Government Decree 289/2005. (XII. 22.), by which Romology teacher’s qualifications were developed, is underway. Teacher training aims to prepare the students for educational and teaching research, planning and development tasks in public education, special education and adult training and PhD studies. In addition, the development of textbooks on Roma culture has begun. While books for grades 7-10 are already available, a development programme shall be designed for the preparation, in co-operation with the national self-government, of further textbooks (textbooks on Roma culture for grades 1-6 and 11-12, Romani and Beás language course books, workbooks, anthologies for grades 1-12). Despite these commendable efforts of integrating knowledge of Roma culture into teacher training, specific steps are still needed to train teachers who are able to teach in/of Romani and Beás.

    The Committee of Experts encourages the Hungarian authorities to train more teachers who would be able to teach in Romani and Beás and to actively promote the teaching in/of these languages at all appropriate stages.

    Other Part II languages
    39. According to the fourth periodical report, the National Armenian Self-Government has given up the teaching of Armenian in state-supported Sunday schools. Only one private language school teaches Armenian.

    40. In the third evaluation report, the Committee of Experts “request[ed] the Hungarian authorities to clarify in the next periodical report whether teaching in or of Bulgarian exists at pre-school level, what levels of education are covered by the Bulgarian supplementary minority school in Budapest, how teacher training is organized and when textbooks for the different stages of education will be available.”

    41. According to the fourth periodical report, the Bulgarian school in Budapest, which is maintained by the Hungarian and the Bulgarian states to educate children of the Bulgarian minority, no longer disposes of a kindergarten group. As a compensation, the Bulgarian National Self-Government founded a kindergarten which uses Bulgarian. Teacher training for Bulgarian minority education is provided by the University of Debrecen and the Faculty of Arts of Eötvös Loránd University. At primary school, textbooks from Bulgaria as well as a textbook on Bulgarian culture developed and published in Hungary are being used. Moreover, a textbook of Bulgarian language and literature was published in 2006 for secondary education.

    42. In the third evaluation report, the Committee of Experts “request[ed] the Hungarian authorities to clarify in the next periodical report whether teaching in or of Greek exists at secondary level, what stages of education are covered by the Greek supplementary minority school, how teacher training is organized and when textbooks for the different stages of education will be available.”

    43. According to the fourth periodical report, supplementary minority education for Greek is provided at primary and secondary levels in Budapest (twelve classes). The Faculty of Arts of Eötvös Loránd University provides for the training of the necessary minority language teachers. Besides textbooks imported from Greece, the Hungarian authorities have produced a textbook for Greek language and literature for primary school grades 1-3 and grades 9-12 (2007) and a textbook on the culture and history of the Greek minority.

    44. In the third evaluation report, the Committee of Experts requested the Hungarian authorities “to clarify in the next periodical report what levels of education are covered by the Polish supplementary minority schools, whether teacher training is also organized in Hungary and when textbooks for the different stages of education will be available.”

    45. According to the fourth periodical report, supplementary minority education for Polish is provided at 18 primary and secondary schools. Teachers are trained primarily at the Faculty of Arts of Eötvös Loránd University. Textbooks are imported from Poland.

    46. In the third evaluation report, the Committee of Experts “urge[d] the Hungarian authorities to start education in and/or of Ruthenian in at least one secondary school, provide for adequate teacher training and guarantee the supply of suitable textbooks.”

    47. According to the fourth periodical report, the use of Ruthenian in education is hindered by the fact that three independent language varieties are used by educational institutions of the neighbouring countries. Since the number of Ruthenians in Hungary does not allow for an independent codification, the minority took part in the codification process in Slovakia and started to teach Ruthenian in Múcsony and Komlóska, using textbooks from Slovakia. Meanwhile, the National Ruthenian Minority Self-Government prefers the Ukrainian (Transcarpathian) variety which is, however, not yet used in school. It is unclear to the Committee of Experts what impact this development has on the teaching of Ruthenian in Múcsony and Komlóska. The Committee of Experts requests the Hungarian authorities to clarify, in the next periodical report, the situation of Ruthenian primary and secondary education, teacher training and textbook development.

    48. The Ukrainian National Self-Government has decided to continue running Sunday schools teaching literature, history and ethnography in Ukrainian.

      h. the promotion of study and research on regional or minority languages at universities or equivalent institutions;

    49. In the third evaluation report, the Committee of Experts “encourage[d] the Hungarian authorities to promote the study of Ruthenian at least at one university or equivalent institution in Hungary and request[ed] them to clarify in the next periodical report whether Armenian, Beás, Bulgarian, Greek, Polish, Romany and Ukrainian can be studied in Hungary.”

    50. According to the available information, Bulgarian, Greek, Polish and Ukrainian can be studied in Hungary. For the Ukrainian language, problems persist as the number of applicants for the programme does not reach the admittance threshold. In addition, the fourth periodical report states that, further to the extension of Part III protection to Beás and Romani, efforts are being undertaken to intensify study and research on Romani and Beás and increase the funding for this purpose. However, study and research on Armenian and Ruthenian are not possible in Hungarian higher education.

    51. The Committee of Experts urges the Hungarian authorities to promote the study of Armenian and Ruthenian at least at one university or equivalent institution in Hungary.

      i. the promotion of appropriate types of transnational exchanges, in the fields covered by this Charter, for regional or minority languages used in identical or similar form in two or more States.

    52. In the third evaluation report, the Committee of Experts “ask[ed] the Hungarian authorities to provide more specific information in the next periodical report of how the use of each of the languages covered only by Part II of the Charter is facilitated and/or encouraged in transnational exchanges.”

    53. The Committee of Experts has not received such information and requests the Hungarian authorities to provide it in the next periodical report.

    Paragraph 2

    The Parties undertake to eliminate, if they have not yet done so, any unjustified distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference relating to the use of a regional or minority language and intended to discourage or endanger the maintenance or development of it. The adoption of special measures in favour of regional or minority languages aimed at promoting equality between the users of these languages and the rest of the population or which take due account of their specific conditions is not considered to be an act of discrimination against the users of more widely-used languages.

    54. In the third evaluation report, the Committee of Experts “encourage[d] the Hungarian authorities to continue and intensify the measures they have taken” with regard to the incorrect enrolment of Roma/Gypsy children in classes for disabled or mentally handicapped pupils.

    55. The Committee of Experts learnt during the on-the-spot visit that the authorities have taken decided action against the traditional pattern of unjustified enrolment of Roma children in classes for disabled or mentally handicapped children. It welcomes these efforts and encourages the authorities to inform the Committee of Experts, in the next periodical report, in more detail of the progress made.

    Paragraph 5

    The Parties undertake to apply, mutatis mutandis, the principles listed in paragraphs 1 to 4 above to non-territorial languages. However, as far as these languages are concerned, the nature and scope of the measures to be taken to give effect to this Charter shall be determined in a flexible manner, bearing in mind the needs and wishes, and respecting the traditions and characteristics, of the groups which use the languages concerned.

    56. In its evaluation of the situation of Armenian, Beás, Bulgarian, Greek, Romani and Ukrainian vis-à-vis Article 7 paragraphs 1-4 of the Charter, the Committee of Experts has kept in mind that those principles should be applied mutatis mutandis.

    3.2 The Committee of Experts’ evaluation in respect of Part III of the Charter

    57. Hungary applies the provisions it has chosen under Part III of the Charter (quoted in bold italics) to Croatian, German, Romanian, Serbian, Slovak and Slovenian on the whole territory of the state.

    58. The Committee of Experts will not comment on provisions in relation to which no major issues were raised in the previous evaluation reports and for which it did not receive any new elements requiring a revised assessment or a different presentation of their implementation. These provisions are listed below:

    Article 8 paragraph 1.e.iii; 2
    Article 9 paragraph 1.a.iii and paragraph 2 a. [b. and c. are redundant]
    Article 10 paragraph 5
    Article 11 paragraph 3
    Article 12 paragraph 1.b. and f., as well as paragraph 2
    Article 13 paragraph 1.a
    Article 14 a.

    59. In respect of these provisions, the Committee of Experts refers to the conclusions reached in its second evaluation report2, but reserves the right to evaluate the situation again at a later stage.

    Article 8 – Education

General issues

    60. In the third evaluation report, the Committee of Experts “encourage[d] the Hungarian authorities to continue their measures to improve the financial situation of education in minority languages at all stages of education and to enable the minority self-governments to take over or establish further mother-tongue or bilingual schools. In addition, the Committee of Experts encourage[d] the Hungarian authorities to review, in co-operation with the users of minority languages, the application-based funding system with a view to securing a stable provision for minority language education and preventing misuse, e.g. through earmarked funding.” Furthermore, the Committee of Ministers recommended Hungary to “improve the financial situation of minority language education and increase the stability of resourcing” and to “actively promote the establishment of further bilingual schools at all stages of education with a view to moving from the model of only teaching the language as a subject to bilingual education in Part III languages.”

    61. As the Committee of Experts learnt during the on-the-spot visit, the national minority self-governments have unsuccessfully requested higher funding for minority language education. The considerable underfunding of minority-language education has persisted during the reporting period. Many minority kindergartens and primary schools were closed or merged with a larger school for lack of financial resources. In addition, deficits persist in the organisation of transport (school buses) for pupils whose schools have been closed or merged.3

    62. According to the fourth periodical report, the budget line for minority language education was increased substantially in 2006 (from 340 million HUF to 1,100 million HUF). Mother tongue programmes in the kin states became eligible for support in 2007. In addition, the financing scheme of public education changed as of the school year 2007/2008. The former normative financing, which was based on the number of pupils per school year, has been replaced by group financing which is determined by annual performance indicators. The purpose of this change is to enable maintainers of institutions that operate in small municipalities with few pupils to seek co-operation with other schools. Additional support is available for maintainers of minority kindergartens and schools that teach minority languages in municipalities with fewer than 1,100 inhabitants.

    63. The Hungarian authorities do not expect further takeovers of minority educational institutions by minority self-governments in the near future, given that local minority self-governments lack the capacity to operate such institutions. Only the Slovak National Self-Government took over a bilingual primary and boarding school in 2007. The Committee of Experts notes that the potential that the system of minority self-governance has for the promotion of the minority languages is far from being fully exploited. In this field, the cultural autonomy remains to some extent symbolical.

    64. No review of the application-based funding system was carried out. The Hungarian authorities consider that the funding system does not allow for earmarked support so as to avoid the misuse of such funds for other purposes (such as the financing of the current cost of schools or the refurbishment of school buildings). Changing the financing scheme would require the amendment of laws such as the Act LV of 1990 on Local Governments.

    65. Bilingual education is not only frustrated by the underfunding of minority-language education, but also by the lack of trained teachers who would be able to teach in minority languages. Consequently, the model of teaching minority languages as a subject still dominates over the bilingual or mother-tongue model as only five additional schools began bilingual education during the reporting period (two using Croatian and Slovenian respectively, one using German). Furthermore, the supply of textbooks for the minority-language teaching of subjects, for example history teaching in secondary education, remains insufficient.

    66. According to the information that the Committee of Experts has received during the on-the-spot visit, many parents are under the impression that bilingual teaching would be burdensome and counterproductive for the development of their children. The Committee of Experts considers that more awareness-raising about the virtues of, and opportunities for, bilingual education is needed. It could be envisaged, for example, that the responsible authorities in municipalities on whose territory minority self-governments are active regularly provide parents of newly-born children with an information package about the opportunities of mother-tongue or bilingual education in the minority languages concerned.

    The Committee of Experts urges the Hungarian authorities to
    - improve the financial situation of education in minority languages at all stages of education
    - secure the necessary financial support for maintaining the mother tongue or bilingual schools taken over by minority self-governments;
    - accelerate the production of textbooks for education in minority languages at all stages of education;
    - organise transport for pupils whose schools have been closed or merged;
    - actively promote minority language education among parents and pupils.

    Paragraph 1

    With regard to education, the Parties undertake, within the territory in which such languages are used, according to the situation of each of these languages, and without prejudice to the teaching of the official language(s) of the State:

      a. i. to make available pre-school education in the relevant regional or minority languages; or

        ii. to make available a substantial part of pre-school education in the relevant regional or minority languages; or
        iii. to apply one of the measures provided for under i and ii above at least to those pupils whose families so request and whose number is considered sufficient; or
        iv. if the public authorities have no direct competence in the field of pre-school education, to favour and/or encourage the application of the measures referred to under i to iii above.

    67. In the third monitoring cycle, the Committee of Experts considered this undertaking partly fulfilled for all languages. It “urge[d] the Hungarian authorities to actively promote the establishment of further mother-tongue kindergartens, in particular for Croatian, German and Slovak.”

    68. According to the fourth periodical report, the number of children attending Croatian mother-tongue kindergartens grew insignificantly (seven) while the number of children in bilingual kindergartens dropped by 275. Consequently, there has been no shift to more mother-tongue education as recommended in the previous evaluation report while the overall situation of Croatian pre-school education has deteriorated.

    69. The number of children attending German mother-tongue kindergartens increased from 178 to 455, which partly implements the Committee of Experts’ recommendation contained in the previous evaluation report. However, the number of children attending bilingual kindergartens dropped by 37 and remains on the whole relatively low.

    70. The number of children attending Romanian mother-tongue kindergartens dropped slightly (eleven) while the number of children attending bilingual kindergartens rose by 62. Consequently, the overall situation of Romanian pre-school education has slightly improved.

    71. The number of children attending Serbian mother-tongue kindergartens dropped significantly by 40 percent while the number of children enrolled in bilingual kindergartens decreased by 39. Consequently, the overall situation of Serbian pre-school education has considerably deteriorated.

    72. The number of children attending Slovak mother-tongue kindergartens grew insignificantly (four) while the number of children enrolled in bilingual kindergartens decreased considerably by 502. Consequently, there has been no shift to more mother-tongue education as recommended in the previous evaluation report while the overall situation of Slovak pre-school education has deteriorated.

    73. There is no kindergarten that would offer mother-tongue education in Slovenian. Slightly more children (five) than in the third monitoring cycle attend bilingual kindergartens. Consequently, the situation of Slovenian pre-school education has remained largely the same.

    74. The Committee of Experts considers this undertaking partly fulfilled. It strongly urges the Hungarian authorities to actively promote the establishment of further mother-tongue kindergartens and to address the negative trends in Croatian, Serbian and Slovak pre-school education.

      b. i. to make available primary education in the relevant regional or minority languages; or

     

        ii. to make available a substantial part of primary education in the relevant regional or minority languages; or

        iii. to provide, within primary education, for the teaching of the relevant regional or minority languages as an integral part of the curriculum; or

        iv. to apply one of the measures provided for under i to iii above at least to those pupils whose families so request and whose number is considered sufficient.

    75. In the third monitoring cycle, the Committee of Experts considered this undertaking partly fulfilled for all languages. It “urge[d] the Hungarian authorities to actively promote the provision of more bilingual primary schools and mother-tongue schools according to the situation of each minority language.”

    76. According to the fourth periodical report, the only Croatian mother-tongue primary school has been closed. However, the number of pupils attending bilingual primary schools rose by 40 percent. In addition, the number of pupils attending schools that teach Croatian as a subject increased. While the absence of Croatian from mother-tongue education is regrettable considering the number of Croatian-speakers in Hungary, there is on the whole a growing interest in Croatian-language primary education.

    77. The number of pupils attending German mother-tongue education fell by 37. In bilingual education, a three percent decrease was reported. However, the number of pupils attending primary schools that teach German as a subject increased (0.7 percent). Consequently, the trend of teaching German predominantly as a subject rather than bilingually or as a mother tongue has been reinforced, contrary to the recommendations of the Committee of Ministers and the Committee of Experts in the previous monitoring cycles.

    78. There is still no school providing Romanian mother-tongue education. The number of pupils enrolled in bilingual schools rose slightly. Twelve percent fewer pupils attend schools that teach Romanian as a subject. On the whole, Romanian primary school education appears to be at a standstill.

    79. No major changes have occurred regarding Serbian: The number of pupils attending Serbian mother-tongue and bilingual education remained practically the same. As regards primary schools that teach Serbian as a subject, the number of pupils decreased by 19.

    80. Slightly more pupils than in the previous monitoring cycle attend Slovak mother-tongue and bilingual education. However, the number of pupils attending primary schools that teach Slovak fell by 215. On the whole, Slovak primary school education appears to be at a standstill.

    81. In Slovenian language education, two primary schools have switched from teaching of the language to bilingual education. The Committee of Experts welcomes this step which implements its recommendation contained in the third evaluation report.

    82. The Committee of Experts considers the undertaking partly fulfilled.

    The Committee of Experts strongly urges the Hungarian authorities to actively promote the establishment of more bilingual primary schools.

      c. i. to make available secondary education in the relevant regional or minority languages; or

        ii. to make available a substantial part of secondary education in the relevant regional or minority languages; or

        iii. to provide, within secondary education, for the teaching of the relevant regional or minority languages as an integral part of the curriculum; or

        iv. to apply one of the measures provided for under i to iii above at least to those pupils who, or where appropriate whose families, so wish in a number considered sufficient.

    83. In the third evaluation report, the Committee of Experts considered this undertaking partly fulfilled. It “urge[d] the Hungarian authorities to actively promote the provision of more bilingual secondary schools and mother-tongue schools according to the situation of each minority language.”

    84. According to the fourth periodical report, no major changes have occurred regarding Croatian.

    85. There are no German secondary mother-tongue schools. No changes have occurred with regard to the bilingual secondary schools and secondary grammar schools that teach German as a subject.

    86. The number of pupils attending the only Romanian grammar school has slightly increased.

    87. There has also been a slight rise in the number of pupils at the Serbian grammar school.

    88. No major changes have occurred regarding Slovak.

    89. The number of pupils learning Slovenian in grammar schools has slightly increased.

    90. The Committee of Experts notes that the overall situation has not changed, apart from some slight improvements for some languages, and that the total number of pupils enrolled in mother-tongue or bilingual secondary schools remains insufficient. The Committee of Experts considers this undertaking partly fulfilled.

    The Committee of Experts strongly urges the Hungarian authorities to actively promote the establishment of more bilingual secondary schools.

      d. i. to make available technical and vocational education in the relevant regional or minority languages; or

        ii. to make available a substantial part of technical and vocational education in the relevant regional or minority languages; or

        iii. to provide, within technical and vocational education, for the teaching of the relevant regional or minority languages as an integral part of the curriculum; or

        iv. to apply one of the measures provided for under i to iii above at least to those pupils who, or where appropriate whose families, so wish in a number considered sufficient.

    91. In the third evaluation report, the Committee of Experts considered this undertaking partly fulfilled for German, Slovak and Croatian and not fulfilled for Romanian, Serbian and Slovenian. It “urge[d] the Hungarian authorities to establish and/or increase in technical and vocational training the offer of teaching of the Part III languages as an integral part of the curriculum, in accordance with the situation of each language.

    92. According to the fourth periodical report, no major changes have occurred regarding Croatian-language education in vocational secondary schools. However, the number of students attending the only vocational school that teaches Croatian has dropped.

    93. The number of students attending the only German bilingual vocational secondary school has decreased while more students attend vocational secondary schools that teach German as a subject. In addition, fewer pupils are enrolled in vocational schools that teach German as a subject.

    94. No major changes have occurred regarding Slovak.

    95. No vocational secondary education exists for Romanian, Serbian and Slovenian.

    96. In general, the offer of vocational education remains unsatisfactory and asymmetrical in the light of the numerical strength of the linguistic groups. Most pupils who have previously attended bilingual or mother-tongue schools are unable to continue at the level of vocational training. The Committee of Experts considers this undertaking partly fulfilled for German, Slovak and Croatian and not fulfilled for Romanian, Serbian and Slovenian.

    The Committee of Experts strongly urges the Hungarian authorities to establish and/or increase in technical and vocational training the offer of teaching Part III languages as an integral part of the curriculum.

      f. i. to arrange for the provision of adult and continuing education courses which are taught mainly or wholly in the regional or minority languages; or

        ii. to offer such languages as subjects of adult and continuing education; or

        iii. if the public authorities have no direct competence in the field of adult education, to favour and/or encourage the offering of such languages as subjects of adult and continuing education;

    97. In the third evaluation report, the Committee of Experts considered this undertaking partly fulfilled for Croatian, German, Romanian and Slovak and not fulfilled for Serbian and Slovenian. It “encourage[d] the Hungarian authorities to develop and finance an adequate framework for adult and continuing education in minority languages and to actively promote such education.”

    98. No changes have occurred. There is no comprehensive scheme of adult and continuing education in minority languages for a wider public. As in the previous monitoring cycles, some minority self-governments organise language courses themselves. The Committee of Experts reiterates the importance of adult and continuing education for the relearning of the mother-tongue.

    99. The Committee of Experts considers this undertaking partly fulfilled for Croatian, German, Romanian and Slovak and not fulfilled for Serbian and Slovenian.

    The Committee of Experts urges the Hungarian authorities to develop and finance an adequate framework for teaching of minority languages in adult and continuing education and to actively promote such education.

      g. to make arrangements to ensure the teaching of the history and the culture which is reflected by the regional or minority language;

    100. In the third evaluation report, the Committee of Experts considered this undertaking fulfilled. However, it encouraged the Hungarian authorities to provide more comprehensive information on the awareness of the culture reflected by the minority languages.

    101. No relevant information was received.

    102. The Committee of Experts requests the Hungarian authorities to provide specific information, including on the teaching of the history and the culture which is reflected by the minority languages in mainstream teaching for non-speakers of minority languages.

      h. to provide the basic and further training of the teachers required to implement those of paragraphs a to g accepted by the Party;

    103. In the third evaluation report, the Committee of Experts considered this undertaking partly fulfilled. It asked the Hungarian authorities to clarify how many teachers have been trained and how many have taken up their duties, and “urge[d] the Hungarian authorities to take resolute steps with a view to increasing the number of teachers who are able to teach subjects in minority languages.” Furthermore, the Committee of Ministers recommended Hungary to “increase .. the number of teachers able to teach subjects in [minority] languages” in order to enable bilingual or mother-tongue education on a wide scale.

    104. According to the fourth periodical report, the teacher training system has not changed. In order to improve the special language skills of teachers teaching general subjects in minority languages, the Hungarian authorities continue to support specialised further language training. Such training is organised by higher educational institutions with minority departments and national minority self-governments. It consists of a 40-hour visit to an educational institution of the kin state and a minimum of 40 hours of theoretical training. Three applications for further training in technical language were supported in 2006, two in 2007. Representatives of the minority language speakers informed the Committee of Experts during the on-the-spot visit that the quantity and quality of teacher training remains insufficient to implement the provisions under Article 8. In particular, there is hardly any training of teachers who would be able to teach subjects in minority languages (e.g. teachers of sciences or history). At the same time, the number of guest teachers coming from the kin states is declining. The Committee of Experts notes that, apart from the underfunding, the lack of teachers remains the main structural bottleneck in the provision of bilingual education.

    105. The Committee of Experts considers this undertaking partly fulfilled.

    The Committee of Experts strongly urges the Hungarian authorities to take resolute steps with a view to increasing the number of teachers who are able to teach subjects in minority languages.

        i. to set up a supervisory body or bodies responsible for monitoring the measures taken and progress achieved in establishing or developing the teaching of regional or minority languages and for drawing up periodic reports of their findings, which will be made public..

    106. In the third evaluation report, the Committee of Experts considered this undertaking not fulfilled. It “urge[d] the Hungarian authorities to establish a dedicated mechanism for monitoring the measures taken and progress achieved in the teaching of Part III languages, and for producing periodical public reports.” Furthermore, the Committee of Ministers recommended Hungary to “set up the dedicated monitoring mechanism envisaged by Article 8, 1(i) of the Charter.”

    107. The fourth periodical report states that the right of minority self-governments to formulate an opinion on all issues related to minority education and the right of consent with regard to the content of such education is appropriate for the purpose of this provision. However, representatives of national minority self-governments pointed out to the Committee of Experts that the right of consent proved to be insufficient with respect to the closure or merger of numerous minority kindergartens and primary schools. At any rate, the Committee of Experts reiterates4 that this undertaking requires the authorities to set up a body dedicated to looking at the teaching of minority languages. In practice, it is possible for an existing body to monitor the measures taken and progress achieved in minority language education and to produce and publish periodical reports.

    108. The Committee of Experts considers this undertaking not fulfilled.

    The Committee of Experts strongly urges the Hungarian authorities to establish a dedicated mechanism for monitoring the measures taken and progress achieved in the teaching of Part III languages, and for producing periodical public reports.

    Article 9 – Judicial authorities

General issues

Geographical scope of application/organisational measures

    109. In the third evaluation report, the Committee of Experts “strongly urge[d] the Hungarian authorities, without minimizing the existing linguistic rights applying to the whole territory of Hungary, to specify those judicial districts in which the number of residents using the minority languages justifies organisational measures to implement the obligations under Article 9 of the Charter.” Furthermore, the Committee of Ministers recommended Hungary to “specify those judicial districts where measures have to be taken with regard to the obligations under Article 9 of the Charter.”

    110. According to the fourth periodical report, the Hungarian authorities have sent letters to the national self-governments of the minorities concerned requesting them to specify those judicial districts where persons belonging to the respective minority have a traditional presence in sufficient numbers. In addition, direct consultations are being held in order to designate the districts. The Committee of Experts considers that the presence of a local minority self-government could become the basis for the concrete implementation of Hungary’s obligations under Article 9 of the Charter, given that municipalities in which a local minority self-government is active are obliged to have announcements and forms translated into the minority language, upon request.

    The Committee of Experts strongly urges the Hungarian authorities, without minimizing the existing linguistic rights applying to the whole territory of Hungary, to specify those judicial districts in which the number of residents using the minority languages justifies organisational measures to implement the obligations under Article 9 of the Charter.

    Information and encouragement measures
    111. In the third evaluation report, the Committee of Experts also “strongly urge[d] the Hungarian authorities to actively inform citizens about the possibility to use a minority language in courts.”

    112. According to the fourth periodical report, no progress has been made in this respect. The right to use one’s mother tongue is explained on the website of courts (www.birosag.hu). Only if it seems apparent to the court that a party does not have an adequate command of Hungarian, does the court provide comprehensive information on the right to use a minority language. However, the Committee of Experts reiterates that Article 9 provides for the right to use a minority language before judicial authorities even if the person concerned does also speak Hungarian. This places a duty on the authorities to make sure that minority language speakers are made aware of this right. The Committee of Experts considers that judicial staff could provide the relevant information in a general way and, moreover, encourage the use of minority languages through bi- or multilingual notices and signs in/on court buildings, and information in public announcements or court forms.

    The Committee of Experts has encouraged and urged the Hungarian authorities to take the aforementioned measure during the previous three monitoring cycles. However, the Committee of Experts notes with great concern that the Hungarian authorities have not implemented this recommendation and that consequently this undertaking is only formally fulfilled. The Committee of Experts therefore again strongly urges the authorities to actively inform citizens about the possibility to use a minority language in courts.

    Paragraph 1

    The Parties undertake, in respect of those judicial districts in which the number of residents using the regional or minority languages justifies the measures specified below, according to the situation of each of these languages and on condition that the use of the facilities afforded by the present paragraph is not considered by the judge to hamper the proper administration of justice:

    Criminal proceedings

      a. ...

        ii. to guarantee the accused the right to use his/her regional or minority language.

    113. In the third evaluation report, the Committee of Experts considered this undertaking formally fulfilled and urged the Hungarian authorities to take appropriate practical measures so that the undertaking is implemented in practice.

    114. The fourth periodical report states that Articles 8 and 17 of Act CXXIII (2006) guarantee the use of a minority language and of interpreters as part of mediation during criminal proceedings. During the reporting period, there were three cases where interpretation was provided at the expense of the State (one for Croatian, German and Romanian respectively). However, it is unclear whether these cases concerned citizens of Hungary.

    115. On the whole, the Committee of Experts considers this undertaking only formally fulfilled.

      a. ...

        iv. to produce, on request, documents connected with legal proceedings in the relevant regional or minority language.

    116. In the third evaluation report, the Committee of Experts considered this undertaking formally fulfilled. It encouraged the Hungarian authorities to provide more information on the practical implementation.

    117. The fourth periodical report does not contain the requested information.

    118. The Committee of Experts considers this undertaking only formally fulfilled. It requests the Hungarian authorities to provide information on the practical implementation of this undertaking in the next periodical report.

    Civil proceedings

      b. ...

        ii. to allow, whenever a litigant has to appear in person before a court, that he or she may use his or her regional or minority language without thereby incurring additional expense;

    119. In the third evaluation report, the Committee of Experts considered this undertaking fulfilled for Slovak and Slovenian and formally fulfilled for Croatian, German, Romanian and Serbian. It encouraged the Hungarian authorities to provide examples, in the next periodical report, of its practical implementation.

    120. According to the fourth periodical report, there has been one5 case where Serbian has been used in civil proceedings. However, it is unclear whether this case concerned a citizen of Hungary.

    121. The Committee of Experts considers this undertaking only formally fulfilled.

      b. ...

        iii. to allow documents and evidence to be produced in the regional or minority language.

    122. In the third evaluation report, the Committee of Experts considered this undertaking formally fulfilled and requested the Hungarian authorities to elaborate on its practical implementation.

    123. According to the fourth periodical report, several courts are equipped with interpretation and translation systems and have the financial resources at their disposal to implement this undertaking. However, no information about the practical implementation is available.

    124. The Committee of Experts considers this undertaking formally fulfilled and requests the Hungarian authorities to elaborate on its practical implementation in the next periodical report.

    Proceedings before courts concerning administrative matters

    c. ...

        ii. to allow, whenever a litigant has to appear in person before a court, that he or she may use his or her regional or minority language without thereby incurring additional expense;

    125. In the third evaluation report, the Committee of Experts considered this undertaking formally fulfilled and requested the Hungarian authorities to provide examples, in the next periodical report, of the concrete implementation.

    126. According to the fourth periodical report, this provision is not implemented in practice.

    127. The Committee of Experts considers this undertaking only formally fulfilled.

      c. ...

        iii. in proceedings before courts concerning administrative matters: to allow documents and evidence to be produced in the regional or minority languages.

    128. In the third evaluation report, the Committee of Experts considered this undertaking formally fulfilled and requested the Hungarian authorities to provide examples, in the next periodical report, of the concrete implementation.

    129. The fourth periodical report does not contain such information.

    130. The Committee of Experts considers this undertaking only formally fulfilled. It requests the Hungarian authorities to provide examples, in the next periodical report, of the concrete implementation.

    Article 10 – Administrative authorities and public services

General issues

Geographical scope of application/organisational measures

    131. In the third evaluation report, the Committee of Experts “strongly urge[d] the Hungarian authorities, without minimizing the existing linguistic rights applying to the whole territory of Hungary, to designate those local and regional authorities, on whose territory local and county minority self-governments representing Part III languages are active, as the authorities that will be obliged to take organisational measures to implement the obligations under Article 10.” Furthermore, the Committee of Ministers recommended Hungary to “take steps to ensure that the relevant local and regional authorities (which the Hungarian authorities are urged to identify in accordance with the previous recommendation of the Committee of Ministers) implement the obligations under Article 10 of the Charter.”

    132. In order to identify the relevant regional and local authorities, the State Secretariat for Minority and National Policy addressed a letter to the national self-governments of minorities representing Part III languages, requesting them to indicate in which regions and counties their minorities have been traditionally present in sufficient numbers. In addition, a Working Group on minority public law with the participation of the Hungarian authorities, the Parliamentary Commissioner for National and Ethnic Minority Rights and the national minority self-governments will inter alia define the historical settlement areas of the minorities.

    The Committee of Experts strongly urges the Hungarian authorities, without minimizing the existing linguistic rights applying to the whole territory of Hungary, to designate those local and regional authorities, on whose territory local and county minority self-governments representing Part III languages are active, as the authorities that will be obliged to take organisational measures to implement the obligations under Article 10.

    Information and encouragement measures
    133. In the third evaluation report, the Committee of Experts also “strongly urge[d] the Hungarian authorities to actively inform citizens about the possibilities to use a minority language before the administrative authorities.”

    134. According to the fourth periodical report, the Hungarian authorities have actively informed the national minorities of their language rights, for example through the minority and majority press and local and regional information meetings. Nevertheless, the Committee of Experts considers that a more systematic and thorough approach is needed.

    Paragraph 1

    Within the administrative districts of the State in which the number of residents who are users of regional or minority languages justifies the measures specified below and according to the situation of each language, the Parties undertake, as far as this is reasonably possible:

        a. ...

            v. to ensure that users of regional or minority languages may validly submit a document in these languages;

    135. In the third evaluation report, the Committee of Experts considered this undertaking formally fulfilled and requested more information in the next periodical report about its practical implementation.

    136. The practical examples contained in the fourth periodical report refer to local administrations whereas this undertaking concerns local branches of the State administration.

    137. The Committee of Experts considers this undertaking formally fulfilled. It requests the Hungarian authorities to provide more information in the next periodical report about its practical implementation.

        c. to allow the administrative authorities to draft documents in a regional or minority language.

    138. In the third evaluation report, the Committee of Experts considered this undertaking formally fulfilled and “encourage[d] the Hungarian authorities to promote the legal possibility to draft documents in a minority language more actively vis-à-vis relevant state administrative authorities, e.g. by means of ministerial decrees and circulars.” In addition, the Committee of Experts invited the authorities to comment on complaints by national minority self-governments that they are legally obliged to translate the minutes of their meetings into Hungarian, even though the meetings are held in the respective minority language.

    139. The practical examples contained in the fourth periodical report refer to local administrations whereas this undertaking concerns local branches of the State administration. It appears that no positive action has been taken to encourage the administrative authorities to draft documents in minority languages.

    140. The Committee of Experts considers this undertaking formally fulfilled. It urges the Hungarian authorities to promote the legal possibility to draft documents in a minority language more actively vis-à-vis relevant state administrative authorities, e.g. by means of ministerial decrees and circulars.

    Paragraph 2

    In respect of the local and regional authorities on whose territory the number of residents who are users of regional or minority languages is such as to justify the measures specified below, the Parties undertake to allow and/or encourage:

      ...

      b. the possibility for users of regional or minority languages to submit oral or written applications in these languages;

    141. In the previous monitoring cycles, the Committee of Experts considered this undertaking fulfilled. However, in the light of the practical information set out below, the Committee of Experts decided to re-evaluate its fulfilment.

    142. According to the fourth periodical report, local administrations in municipalities where the Part III languages are used often have officials at their disposal who speak the minority language concerned. In practice, Slovenian is used in certain types of proceedings. Apart from this, however, there are no indications of a stable and regular implementation of this provision in practice. Also, there is no information about the extent to which basic administrative forms have been made available in minority languages.

    143. The Committee of Experts considers this undertaking formally fulfilled.

        e. the use by regional authorities of regional or minority languages in debates in their assemblies, without excluding, however, the use of the official language(s) of the State;

    144. In the third evaluation report, the Committee of Experts considered this undertaking formally fulfilled.

    145. In the fourth monitoring cycle, the use of a minority language in regional assemblies remained legally possible, but practically non-existent.

    146. The Committee of Experts considers this undertaking formally fulfilled.

        f. the use by local authorities of regional or minority languages in debates in their assemblies, without excluding, however, the use of the official language(s) of the State;

    147. In the third evaluation report, the Committee of Experts considered this undertaking formally fulfilled and “encourage[d] the Hungarian authorities to promote the oral and written use of minority languages by local authorities in debates in their assemblies.”

    148. The fourth periodical report does not provide practical examples of the use by local authorities of minority languages in debates in their assemblies.

    149. The Committee of Experts considers this undertaking formally fulfilled. It urges the Hungarian authorities to promote the oral and written use of minority languages by local authorities in debates in their assemblies.

        g. the use or adoption, if necessary in conjunction with the name in the official language(s), of traditional and correct forms of place-names in regional or minority languages.

    150. In the third evaluation report, the Committee of Experts considered this undertaking formally fulfilled. It “urge[d] the Hungarian authorities to promote the adoption by the eligible municipalities of all local topographical names in the minority language(s) concerned and financially assist their use in conjunction with the official use of the Hungarian denominations.”

    151. According to the fourth periodical report, the Hungarian authorities allocated 20 million HUF to provide bilingual street, place-name and other signs, mainly to Slovenian-speaking municipalities. The Committee of Experts welcomes this financial incentive. In general, however, a relatively low share of the eligible municipalities (i.e. where a local minority self-government is active) have adopted official place-names in a minority language. Also, the use of the minority place-name is usually limited to the signs at the entrance of the municipality and some – rarely all – signs on public buildings. Place name signs at the exits of municipalities, street name signs, signposts and public transport signs bear the Hungarian place-names only. As the Hungarian authorities stated during the on-the-spot visit, the use of official place-names in minority languages is not monitored. The Committee of Experts considers that an authority should be designated to carry out such monitoring, for example the road and traffic authority.

    152. The Committee of Experts considers this undertaking partly fulfilled. It strongly urges the Hungarian authorities to promote the adoption by the eligible municipalities of all local topographical names in the minority language(s) concerned and financially assist their use in conjunction with the official use of the Hungarian denominations.

    Paragraph 3

    With regard to public services provided by the administrative authorities or other persons acting on their behalf, the Parties undertake, within the territory in which regional or minority languages are used, in accordance with the situation of each language and as far as this is reasonably possible:

      ...

        c. to allow users of regional or minority languages to submit a request in these languages.

    153. In the third evaluation report, the Committee of Experts considered this undertaking not fulfilled. It “urge[d] the Hungarian authorities to ensure that people can submit requests in minority languages to public services.”

    154. The situation has not changed. There still exists no legislation or other framework that would explicitly allow users of minority languages to submit a request in these languages to public services. In addition, the degree of practical implementation is unclear.

    155. The Committee of Experts considers this undertaking not fulfilled.

    The Committee of Experts strongly urges the Hungarian authorities to ensure that minority language users can submit requests in minority languages to public services in practice.

    Paragraph 4

    With a view to putting into effect those provisions of paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 accepted by them, the Parties undertake to take one or more of the following measures:

        a. translation or interpretation as may be required;

    156. In the third evaluation report, the Committee of Experts considered this undertaking fulfilled for German and Slovak, but partly fulfilled for Croatian, Romanian, Serbian and Slovenian at local and regional level. It requested information on its practical implementation in the next periodical report.

    157. The fourth periodical report does not provide practical examples of translation or interpretation for any of the above mentioned languages.

    158. The Committee of Experts requests the Hungarian authorities to provide information on its practical implementation in the next periodical report.

        c. compliance as far as possible with requests from public service employees having a knowledge of a regional or minority language to be appointed in the territory in which that language is used.

    159. In the third evaluation report, the Committee of Experts considered this undertaking fulfilled for German and Slovak, and formally fulfilled for Croatian, Romanian, Serbian and Slovenian at the state, regional and local level.

    160. According to the available information, officials speaking Part III languages, including Croatian, Romanian, Serbian and Slovenian, are employed by several authorities at the state, regional and local levels.

    161. The Committee of Experts considers this undertaking fulfilled.

    Article 11 – Media

    Paragraph 1

    The Parties undertake, for the users of the regional or minority languages within the territories in which those languages are spoken, according to the situation of each language, to the extent that the public authorities, directly or indirectly, are competent, have power or play a role in this field, and respecting the principle of the independence and autonomy of the media:

        a. to the extent that radio and television carry out a public service mission:

            ...

            iii. to make adequate provision so that broadcasters offer programmes in the regional or minority languages;

    162. In the third evaluation report, the Committee of Experts considered this undertaking partly fulfilled concerning television and not fulfilled concerning radio. It “strongly urge[d] the Hungarian authorities to allocate a suitable frequency for the broadcasting of radio programmes in minority languages”. The Committee of Experts also “urge[d] the Hungarian authorities to improve the time-slots and time-schedules available for television programmes in minority languages and, in particular, to guarantee that the re-runs of all national programmes are broadcast at a time when most users of the respective regional or minority languages can watch them.” Furthermore, the Committee of Ministers recommended Hungary to “improve the offer of minority language programmes in the media, in particular by allocating a suitable radio frequency (…).”

    163. According to the fourth periodical report, Magyar Rádió was authorised in 2006 to continue using the band frequency for the minority language programmes for another year. Since February 2007, these programmes are broadcast by the new minority channel MR4 on a separate medium wave receivable on the entire territory of Hungary. MR4 broadcasts two hours per day each in Croatian, German, Romanian, Serbian, Slovak and Slovenian. The minority language programmes are also broadcast 24 hours a day by satellite and are available on the internet. The Committee of Experts welcomes the establishment of a dedicated radio station for minority language programmes. During the on-the-spot visit, however, the Committee of Experts received complaints from national minority self-governments that the broadcasting quality on the medium-wave frequency is poor. For example, no stereo broadcasting of music is possible, which considerably reduces the attractivity of the minority language programmes.

    164. The broadcasting time of the minority language programmes on Magyar Televízió (26 minutes per week) has not changed. As regards the Committee of Experts’ recommendation “to improve the time-slots”, the Hungarian authorities set up a Working Group on Minority Media with the participation of the national minority self-governments, the public service media and the National Radio and Television Board (ORTT). The working group initiated a review of the co-operation agreement concluded by Magyar Televízió and the national minority self-governments in order to adjust the time-slots of the minority language programmes (12.30 to 1.30 p.m. on workdays). These consultations have not yet been concluded. The Committee of Experts was informed by national minority self-governments that they prefer their programmes to be broadcast in the afternoon (e.g. 3 or 4 p.m.) in order to reach a wider and younger audience. In addition, more financial support and additional staff would be needed to digitalise the programmes, which would considerably improve their availability. The reruns of the minority programmes are broadcast on channel M2 (on workdays in the morning), but they can only be received by satellite. The earlier practice of not broadcasting programmes in minority languages on national holidays and religious festive days was abandoned. Since 2006, the minority programmes of Magyar Televízió are also available on the internet.

    165. The Committee of Experts considers this undertaking fulfilled concerning radio and partly fulfilled concerning television. It strongly urges the Hungarian authorities to improve the time-slots, time-schedules and financial support available for television programmes in minority languages.

        b ...

            ii to encourage and/or facilitate the broadcasting of radio programmes in the regional or minority languages on a regular basis;

    166. In the third evaluation report, the Committee of Experts considered this undertaking fulfilled for Slovenian, partly fulfilled for Croatian and not fulfilled for German, Romanian, Serbian and Slovak. It “encourage[d] the Hungarian authorities to promote the broadcasting of programmes in German, Romanian, Serbian and Slovak on private radio and ask[ed] them to elaborate in the next periodical report on the broadcasting time (hours per day/time of the day), content and funding of Radio Monošter and the internet radio transmitting in Croatian.”

    167. According to the fourth periodical report, the “Croatica Internet Radio” is jointly operated by the Croatian National Self-Government and Croatica Publishers and receives financial support from the Hungarian authorities. It broadcasts four hours per week in Croatian.

    168. Radio Triplex broadcasts programmes in Romanian and Serbian. No detailed information is available about the exact broadcasting time, the time slot, content and the actual involvement of the Hungarian authorities.

    169. Radio Monošter, which also receives the support of the Slovenian and Austrian authorities, has been allocated a new frequency enabling it to broadcast eight hours per week in Slovenian.

    170. There are no indications that the Hungarian authorities are encouraging and/or facilitating the broadcasting in German and Slovak on private radio.

    171. The Committee of Experts considers this undertaking fulfilled for Croatian, Romanian, Serbian and Slovenian, but not fulfilled for German and Slovak. It urges the Hungarian authorities to promote the broadcasting of programmes in German and Slovak on private radio.

        c. ...

            ii. to encourage and/or facilitate the broadcasting of television programmes in the regional or minority languages on a regular basis;

    172. In the third evaluation report, the Committee of Experts considered this undertaking partly fulfilled for Croatian, German, Romanian, Slovak and Slovenian and not fulfilled for Serbian. It “urge[d] the Hungarian authorities to encourage and/or facilitate access of the minority language users to community cable television networks, local cable television reception as well as to television programmes from countries in which these languages are used.”

    173. The Committee of Experts has received no information on any new developments and therefore upholds the former conclusion.

    174. The Committee of Experts strongly urges the Hungarian authorities to encourage and/or facilitate access of the minority language users to community cable television networks, local cable television reception as well as to television programmes from countries in which these languages are used.

    e. i to encourage and/or facilitate the creation and/or maintenance of at least one newspaper in the regional or minority languages; or

    175. In the previous monitoring cycles, the Committee of Experts considered this undertaking fulfilled. During the on-the-spot visit, however, the Committee of Experts received worrying reports from several national minority self-governments that, due to considerable cuts in financial support for minority language newspapers, the further existence of several newspapers is endangered. However, the Hungarian authorities informed the Committee of Experts that negotiations are being held to solve these budgetary problems. The Committee of Experts encourages the Hungarian authorities to maintain the previous financial support to newspapers in minority languages.

    f. i. to cover the additional costs of those media which use regional or minority languages, wherever the law provides for financial assistance in general for the media.

    176. In the third evaluation report, the Committee of Experts considered this undertaking fulfilled in the radio and press sector and partly fulfilled in the television sector. It “encourage[d] the Hungarian authorities to establish a permanent funding system for television programmes in minority languages and to intensify its important initiatives concerning the internet.”

    177. The information provided in the fourth periodical report is not sufficiently specific to enable the Committee of Experts to reach a conclusion.

    178. The Committee of Experts considers the lack of specific information on this undertaking as an indication that no comprehensive mechanism to cover the additional costs of minority language programmes exist. It urges the Hungarian authorities to establish a permanent funding system for programmes in minority languages.

      g. to support the training of journalists and other staff for media using regional or minority languages.

    179. In the third evaluation report, the Committee of Experts considered this undertaking partly fulfilled. It “urge[d] the Hungarian authorities to establish and finance a comprehensive scheme for the training of journalists and other media staff using minority languages.” Furthermore, the Committee of Ministers recommended Hungary to “improve the offer of minority language programmes in the media, in particular by (…) developing and financing a comprehensive scheme for the training of journalists and other media staff using minority languages.”

    180. According to the fourth periodical report, the bilateral agreements concluded with the kin states of the minorities may facilitate the training of journalists working in minority languages. Magyar Rádió concluded an agreement with Slovak Radio which makes it possible to exchange journalists. It is planning to conclude similar agreements with the public service radio stations of other neighbouring countries. In addition, Magyar Televízió intends to launch in-service training courses for staff of minority studios. However, it is not clear to the Committee of Experts how many journalists for each of the languages concerned have been trained during the reporting period. There still does not seem to exist a coherent training scheme for journalists working in minority languages.

    181. The Committee of Experts considers this undertaking partly fulfilled.

    The Committee of Experts strongly urges the Hungarian authorities to establish and finance a comprehensive scheme for the training of journalists and other media staff using minority languages.

    Article 12 Cultural activities and facilities

    Paragraph 1

    With regard to cultural activities and facilities – especially libraries, video libraries, cultural centres, museums, archives, academies, theatres and cinemas, as well as literary work and film production, vernacular forms of cultural expression, festivals and the culture industries, including inter alia the use of new technologies – the Parties undertake, within the territory in which such languages are used and to the extent that the public authorities are competent, have power or play a role in this field:

      a. to encourage types of expression and initiative specific to regional or minority languages and foster the different means of access to works produced in these languages.

    182. In the third evaluation report, the Committee of Experts considered this undertaking partly fulfilled for all languages. It “urge[d] the Hungarian authorities to develop, in co-operation with the users of minority languages, a comprehensive medium-term programme for cultural activities and facilities.”

    183. According to the fourth periodical report, the Hungarian authorities have continued to provide financial support to a number of cultural facilities and activities of national minorities, notably in the fields of theatre, libraries and museums. Due to the allocation of budgetary funds, the network of minority cultural centres has improved considerably. The report refers to the Slovak Cultural Centre, the German Cultural Centre and the Serbian Cultural and Documentation Centre, which all dispose of a network of regional branch offices. However, in the light of information received from the national minority self-governments, problems persist regarding the lack of predictable medium and long-term planning in the cultural field. The conclusion of a medium-term development programme for the cultural field would be desirable.

    184. The Committee of Experts considers this undertaking partly fulfilled. The Committee of Experts encourages the authorities to establish a stable financial framework for the running of the cultural institutions.

      c. to foster access in regional or minority languages to works produced in other languages by aiding and developing translation, dubbing, post-synchronisation and subtitling activities;

    185. In the third evaluation report, the Committee of Experts considered this undertaking fulfilled, but requested further information about the implementation for Croatian, Romanian, Serbian and Slovenian.

    186. According to the fourth periodical report, works of popular contemporary Hungarian writers were translated into Croatian, German, Romanian, Serbian, Slovak and Slovenian. However, there is no information whether the Hungarian authorities have aided and developed dubbing, post-synchronisation and subtitling activities.

    187. The Committee of Experts considers this undertaking fulfilled. It requests the Hungarian authorities to provide, in the next periodical report, information about dubbing, post-synchronisation and subtitling activities.

      g. to encourage and/or facilitate the creation of a body or bodies responsible for collecting, keeping a copy of and presenting or publishing works produced in the regional or minority languages.

    188. In the third evaluation report, the Committee of Experts considered this undertaking fulfilled. Nevertheless, it “encourage[d] the Hungarian authorities to apply [it] to audiovisual works produced in Croatian, German, Romanian, Serbian and Slovenian as well as to visual works produced in Slovak.”

    189. In the light of the information gathered during the on-the-spot visit, the Committee of Experts notes that the cultural centres existing for the minority languages perform the tasks required by this provision.

    190. The Committee of Experts considers this undertaking fulfilled.

    Paragraph 3

    The Parties undertake to make appropriate provision, in pursuing their cultural policy abroad, for regional or minority languages and the cultures they reflect.

    191. In the third evaluation report, the Committee of Experts considered this undertaking fulfilled. Nevertheless, it “remind[ed] the authorities that the concept of the ‘cultural policy abroad’ not only refers to states in which the minority languages are used, but also obliges the Hungarian authorities to show the multilingual nature of Hungary more generally in countries in which Hungarian cultural institutions are active.”

    192. According to the fourth periodical report, the culture which is reflected by the minority languages is presented by the Hungarian cultural centres in the kin states, but apparently not in other countries.

    193. The Committee of Experts considers this undertaking partly fulfilled.

    Article 14 – Transfrontier exchanges

    The Parties undertake:

      ...
      b. for the benefit of regional or minority languages, to facilitate and/or promote co-operation across borders, in particular between regional or local authorities in whose territory the same language is used in identical or similar form.

    194. In the third evaluation report, the Committee of Experts considered this undertaking fulfilled. Nevertheless, it “ask[ed] the Hungarian authorities to provide information, in the next periodical report, on its practical implementation.”

    195. During the on-the-spot visit, the Committee of Experts was informed of numerous cases of co-operation across borders between regional or local authorities on whose territory the Part III languages are used.

    196. The Committee of Experts considers this undertaking fulfilled.

    Chapter 4 Findings and proposals for recommendations

    4.1 Findings of the Committee of Experts in the fourth monitoring cycle

    A. The Committee of Experts expresses its gratitude to the Hungarian authorities for the continued excellent level of co-operation. The Committee of Experts recognises the value of the unique system of minority self-government, which is in principle beneficial to the protection and promotion of minority languages. Further mention needs to be made of supplementary minority education, which is provided if the statutory requirement of eight pupils cannot be met and which the Committee of Experts considers good practice.

    B. The protection and promotion of minority languages in Hungary is hampered by a lack of long-term language policy and planning. Many measures undertaken by the Hungarian authorities are reactive in nature and do not follow a long-term strategy for each of the 14 languages. The budgetary parameters of mother-tongue and bilingual educational institutions have improved to a certain degree, but are still volatile and in many cases application-based, which makes long-term planning difficult.

    C. There is still no structured plan for providing education in regional or minority languages for all those who may want it and according to the situation of each language. In particular, there is a need to plan for the extended use of bilingual models of education in schools, in order to counter the general trend towards teaching minority languages only as a subject. In addition, the supplementary funding of minority language education proves to be insufficient in practice mainly due to a lack of a scheme of earmarking the relevant funds. Furthermore, those who do not speak, or speak only to some extent, a minority language have no comprehensive framework of adult and continuing education at their disposal that would enable the “relearning of the mother-tongue”. Hungary also lacks a dedicated mechanism according to Article 8 paragraph 1 sub-paragraph i. of the Charter which could monitor the measures taken and progress achieved in minority language education.

    D. Most minority languages covered only under Part II are treated similarly in the fields of the media and culture to languages covered also under Part III of the Charter. It deserves to be stressed that all Part II languages are present in education and the media.

    E. The fundamental problems of Romani and Beás, in particular the insufficient teaching of the languages and deficits in teacher training, study and research, have persisted. Substantial efforts by the Hungarian authorities are needed to improve the situation of Romani and Beás in education as well as in the media.

    F. The structural deficits in education have mainly stayed the same throughout the four monitoring cycles. Bilingual primary and secondary schools remain underrepresented compared to schools where there is only teaching of the language. Even though the Hungarian authorities have taken steps to maintain provision of minority language education in rural areas, small village schools are still threatened with closures or mergers. There is consequently a need for the authorities to organise school transport. Continuity of minority language education from primary to secondary schools is not secured because the offer of minority language education at ordinary secondary schools is very limited. Also, minority language teaching at the level of technical and vocational schools is underdeveloped. Although sufficient teachers of minority languages have been trained, there exists a serious shortage of teachers teaching subjects in minority languages.

    G. Concerning Articles 9 and 10, there is still a need to define the areas in which organisational measures have to be taken in order to implement the undertakings ratified. The lack of defined areas hampers seriously the implementation of the undertakings chosen by Hungary and makes monitoring of the implementation difficult. Both for the fields of application of Articles 9 and 10, there is a clear lack of measures of encouragement inviting minority language speakers to make use of their rights under the Charter.

    H. The provision of radio programmes in minority languages has been strengthened by the establishment of a specialised radio station (MR4). There have been improvements in the provision of minority language programmes on private radio. The provision of television broadcasting in minority languages still suffers from structural problems: unsatisfactory time-slots and time-schedules, inadequate funding, a lack of local and regional broadcasters. Also, there is no comprehensive training scheme for minority language journalists.

    I. Due to financial constraints and a lack of administrative capacity, some key features of the system of minority self-governments, notably the possibility to take over or set up cultural and educational institutions, are broadly inoperative at present. Few such institutions are operated by the minority self-governments; further take-overs are unlikely.

    J. The Committee of Experts observes, in particular regarding measures under Articles 8, 9 and 10 of the Charter, that the Hungarian authorities adopt an approach that will make it difficult to preserve minority languages from substantial decline. In particular, they tend to rely too much on the initiative of the minority language users instead of systematically taking proactive measures.

    4.2. Proposals for recommendations on the basis of the results of the fourth monitoring round

    The Committee of Experts, while acknowledging the efforts the Hungarian authorities have undertaken to protect the regional and minority languages spoken in their country, has in its evaluation chosen to concentrate on some of the most important deficiencies in the implementation of the Charter. The recommendations forwarded by the Committee of Experts to the Committee of Ministers should not, however, be interpreted as diminishing the relevance of the other, more detailed observations contained in the report, which remain valid in their own right. The recommendations proposed by the Committee of Experts are drafted accordingly.

    The Committee of Experts of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, in accordance with Article 16 paragraph 4 of the Charter, proposes on the basis of the information contained in this report, that the Committee of Ministers makes the following recommendations to Hungary.

    The Committee of Ministers,

    In accordance with Article 16 of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages;

    Having regard to the instrument of ratification submitted by Hungary on 26 April 1995;

    Having taken note of the evaluation made by the Committee of Experts of the Charter with respect to the application of the Charter by Hungary;

    Bearing in mind that this evaluation is based on information submitted by Hungary in its fourth periodical report, supplementary information given by the Hungarian authorities, information submitted by bodies and associations legally established in Hungary and the information obtained by the Committee of Experts during its on-the-spot visit,

    Recommends that the Hungarian authorities take account of all the observations and recommendations of the Committee of Experts and, as a matter of priority:

    1. develop a structured long-term policy and plan for education in all regional or minority languages and set up a dedicated monitoring mechanism, as envisaged by Article 8, paragraph 1(i) of the Charter;

    2. improve further the financial situation of minority language education and increase the stability of resourcing;

    3. increase bilingual education at all stages with a view to moving from the model of only teaching the language as a subject to bilingual education in Part III languages, and increase accordingly the number of teachers able to teach subjects in these languages;

    4. improve the offer of minority language programmes on television and develop and finance a comprehensive scheme for the training of journalists and other media staff using minority languages;

    5. take steps to ensure that the relevant judicial and administrative authorities implement the obligations under Articles 9 and 10 of the Charter, in particular by specifying those judicial and administrative districts where organisational measures should be taken and informing speakers of regional or minority languages of their rights under Articles 9 and 10.;

    6. take further resolute measures in language planning for Romani and Beás, with a view to making available on a wider scale teaching of and in these languages at all appropriate stages.

    Appendix I: Instrument of ratification

    Hungary
     

    Declarations contained in the instrument of ratification, deposited on 26 April 1995 - Or. Engl. and completed by a Note verbale (1) from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Hungary, dated 12 March 1999, registered at the Secretariat General on 16 March 1999 - Or. Fr.

    Hungary declares, according to Article 2, paragraph 2, and Article 3, that it applies to the Croatian, German, Romanian, Serbian, Slovak and Slovene languages, the following provisions of Part III of the Charter:

    In Article 8
    :
    Paragraph 1, sub-paragraphs a (iv), b (iv), c (iv), d (iv), e (iii), f (iii), g, h, i
    Paragraph 2

    In Article 9
    :
    Paragraph 1, sub-paragraphs a (ii), a (iii), a (iv), b (ii), b (iii), c (ii), c (iii)
    Paragraph 2, sub-paragraphs a, b, c

    In Article 10
    :
    Paragraph 1, sub-paragraphs a (v), c
    Paragraph 2, sub-paragraphs b, e, f, g
    Paragraph 3, sub-paragraph c
    Paragraph 4, sub-paragraphs a, c
    Paragraph 5

    In Article 11
    :
    Paragraph 1, sub-paragraphs a (iii), b (ii), c (ii), e (i), f (i), g
    Paragraph 3

    In Article 12
    :
    Paragraph 1, sub-paragraphs a, b, c, f, g
    Paragraph 2
    Paragraph 3

    In Article 13
    :
    Paragraph 1, sub-paragraph a

    In Article 14
    :
    Paragraph a
    Paragraph b.

    [(1) Note from the Secretariat:

    The Note verbale read as follows:


    " The Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Hungary presents its compliments to the Secretariat General of the Council of Europe and has the honor to draw its attention to a technical error contained in the instrument of ratification deposited by the Republic of Hungary, namely that the languages enumerated in respect of which Hungary makes undertakings concerning Part III of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, do not include the Serbian language.

    Indeed, the Republic of Hungary, by Decision No. 35/1995 (IV.7) of the Parliament, of which an official translation in French is appended, has ratified Part III of the Charter, accepting also the Serbian language and with the same options as those enumerated in the instrument of ratification of 19 April 1995. Hungary's obligations with regard to the Serbian language become therefore operative from the date of entry into force of the European Charter for Regional of Minority Languages in respect of Hungary.

    Decision of the Parliament No. 35/1995 (IV.7)
    On the ratification of the European Charter on Regional or Minority Languages
    and on the undertakings taken by the Republic of Hungary
    in conformity with its Article 2, litt. 2,


    The Parliament, on a proposition from the Government:

    1. Ratifies the European Charter on Regional or Minority Languages, elaborated on 5 November 1992, which text is reproduced in Appendix No. 1.

    2. Agrees that the undertakings taken in conformity with Article 2, litt. 2, of the Charter reproduced in Appendix No. 2 extend to the Croatian, German, Romanian, Serbian, Slovakian, Slovenian languages.

    3. Invites the President of the Republic to issue the instrument of ratification.

    4. Invites the Minister of Foreign Affairs to deposit the instrument of ratification and the inventory of the undertakings taken."]


    Period covered: 01/03/98 -
    The preceding statement concerns Article(s): 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 2, 3, 8, 9

    Declaration contained in a Note verbale from the Permanent Representation of Hungary, dated 24 June 2008, supplemented by a Note verbale from the Permanent Representation of Hungary, dated 17 July 2008, registered at the Secretariat General on 22 July 2008 - Or. Engl.

    The Government of the Republic of Hungary, based on the autorisation of the Parliament and according to Article 2, paragraph 2, of the Charter, undertakes to apply the following provisions in respect of the Romani language :

    Article 8

    Paragraph 1, sub-paragraphs a (iii), b (iv), c (iv), d (iv), e (iii), f (iii), g, h, i
    Paragraph 2

    Article 9

    Paragraph 1, sub-paragraphs a (ii) (iii) (iv), b (ii) (iii), c (ii) (iii)
    Paragraph 2, sub-paragraph c

    Article 10

    Paragraph 1, sub-paragraphs a (iv), b, c
    Paragraph 2, sub-paragraphs b, e, f, g
    Paragraph 3, sub-paragraph c
    Paragraph 4, sub-paragraphs a, c

    Article 11

    Paragraph 1, sub-paragraphs a (ii), b (ii), c (ii), d, e (ii), f (ii), g
    Paragraph 3

    Article 12

    Paragraph 1, sub-paragraphs a, b, c, d, f, g
    Paragraph 2
    Paragraph 3

    Article 13

    Paragraph 1, sub-paragraphs a, c
    Paragraph 2, sub-paragraph c

    Article 14

    Paragraph a
    Paragraph b.


    The application of the Charter in respect of this language took effect on 28 June 2008.
    Period covered: 28/6/2008 -
       

The preceding statement concerns Article(s) : 2

    Declaration contained in a Note verbale from the Permanent Representation of Hungary, dated 24 June 2008, supplemented by a Note verbale from the Permanent Representation of Hungary, dated 17 July 2008, registered at the Secretariat General on 22 July 2008 - Or. Engl.

    The Government of the Republic of Hungary, based on the autorisation of the Parliament and according to Article 2, paragraph 2, of the Charter, undertakes to apply the following provisions in respect of the Beás language :

    Article 8

    Paragraph 1, sub-paragraphs a (iv), b (iv), c (iv), d (iv), e (iii), f (iii), g, h, i
    Paragraph 2

    Article 9

    Paragraph 1, sub-paragraphs a (ii) (iii) (iv), b (ii) (iii), c (ii) (iii)
    Paragraph 2, sub-paragraph c

    Article 10
    Paragraph 1, sub-paragraphs a (v), c
    Paragraph 2, sub-paragraphs b, e, f, g
    Paragraph 3, sub-paragraph c
    Paragraph 4, sub-paragraphs a, c

    Article 11

    Paragraph 1, sub-paragraphs a (iii), b (ii), c (ii), e (ii), f (i), g
    Paragraph 3

    Article 12

    Paragraph 1, sub-paragraphs a, b, c, d, f, g
    Paragraph 2
    Paragraph 3

    Article 13

    Paragraph 1, sub-paragraph a
    Paragraph 2, sub-paragraph c

    Article 14

    Paragraph a
    Paragraph b.

    The application of the Charter in respect of this language took effect on 28 June 2008.
    Period covered: 28/6/2008 -
     

The preceding statement concerns Article(s) : 2

1 This document has been classified restricted until examination by the Committee of Ministers.

2 2nd Report of the Committee of Experts on the application of the Charter in Hungary (ECRML(2004)5), paras. 55; 87; 95-97.

3 Cf. 2nd Report of the Committee of Experts on the application of the Charter in Hungary (ECRML(2004)5), paragraphs 56, 62.

4 Cf. 1st Report of the Committee of Experts on the application of the Charter in the United Kingdom (ECRML(2004)1), para. 131

5 Another case concerned Polish, which is covered by Part II.



 Top

 

  Related Documents
 
   Meetings
 
   Other documents
 
   External links