Kisebbségpolitikai
On-line Lexikon

In the Groener case, a Dutch teacher was rejected for a position in Ireland because she did not speak Irish. The Court found that requiring proficiency in the Irish language for the position was not unreasonable. The Court’s reasoning stated that while supporting the national language is permissible for Member States, language requirements must be applied in a proportional and non-discriminatory manner. In the Mutsch case, a German-speaking Luxembourg citizen faced trial in Belgium, where local regulations allowed the German minority the right to use their native language in court. The Court determined that citizens of Member States should enjoy the same rights in criminal proceedings in any Member State as the nationals of that Member State. In the Bickel/Franz case, Austrian and German citizens were involved in criminal proceedings in South Tyrol, Italy, where Italian law permitted local citizens to use both German and Italian languages in court. The Court found that the Italian provision constituted indirect discrimination because it only allowed residents to use the German language. The Court stated that while protecting minorities is a legitimate aim for a state, EU law does not obligate them to do so. However, if a Member State chooses to enact such provisions, they must be applied to all similarly situated citizens of EU Member States. In the Rüffer case, the Court held that the principles established in the Bickel/Franz judgment also apply to civil proceedings. In the above-mentioned cases, minority language users could only rely on the prohibition of discrimination based on nationality. The Court identified their nationality with the official language of their Member State, thus, their language rights did not extend to their native language. Consequently, citizens speaking the official languages of Member States were placed in a more advantageous position. (TB)