Kisebbségpolitikai
On-line Lexikon

Within the abundant minority-relevant case-law under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), a relatively small number of cases are related to the use of language. Language use is protected by three provisions in the Convention, and the use of minority languages as such is protected by none. The three explicit language rights are set out in the context of criminal proceedings: every person suspected of a crime has the right to be informed immediately in a language they understand of the reasons for arrest, as well as the nature and grounds of the charge brought against them. The Convention also guarantees the right of a free interpreter if the defendant cannot speak or understand the language used in court. In addition, language rights can also be derived from other provisions of the ECHR, which are usually invoked in conjunction with the prohibition of discrimination (e.g. Ádám and Others v. Romania). The European Court of Human Rights also discussed cases related to the use of minority languages in the context of freedom of expression (e.g. Július Pereszlényi – Servis TV-Video v. Slovakia), the right to education (e.g. Belgian linguistic case) and electoral rights (e.g. Fryske Nasionale Partij and Others v. the Netherlands). Although “linguistic freedom as such is not one of the rights and freedoms governed by the Convention”, the Court itself admitted that “there is no watertight division separating linguistic policy from the field covered by the Convention, and a measure taken as part of such policy may come within one or more of the Convention provisions” (Mentzen v. Latvia). Nevertheless, the Court has adopted a restrictive approach towards the protection of minority language rights: it has considered language issues only insofar as absolutely necessary to guarantee the enforcement of (explicit) Convention rights, the standard account being that states have a wide margin of appreciation in the design of their language regimes.