1 See Euromosaic Studies I, II and III (2004), at http://europa.eu.int/comm/education/policies/lang/languages/euromosaic/index_es.Google Scholar

2 See Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe, art. IV-448.1, Dec. 16, 2004, 2004 O.J. (C310) 1 [hereinafter Draft EU Constitution]. The people of France and the Netherlands rejected the text of the Constitution on 29 May 2005 and 1 June 2005 respectively. In the light of these results, a period of reflection, explanation and discussion is currently under way in all countries.Google Scholar

3 See Draft EU Constitution, arts. I-10, II-101 and III-128.Google Scholar

4 See Witte, B. de, Language Law of the European Union: Protecting or Eroding Linguistic Diversity, in Culture and European Union Law 220 (Craufurd ed., 2004).Google Scholar

5 Council Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958, art. 1, 1958 O.J. (17) 401-402 (EEC/Euratom) (Determining the language to be used by the European Economic Community and the European Atomic Energy Community).Google Scholar

6 See Council Regulation No 930/2004, On Temporary Derogation Measures Relating to the Drafting in Maltese of the Acts of the Institutions of the European Union, 2004 O.J. (L 169) 1-2 (EC).Google Scholar

7 See Council Regulation No 920/2005, Amending Regulation No 1 of 15 April 1958 and Introducing Temporary Derogation Measures, 2005 O.J. (L 156) 3-4 (EC).Google Scholar

8 See Council Regulation No 1791/2006, Adapting Certain Regulations and Decisions in the Fields of Free Movement of Goods, Freedom of Movement of Persons, Company Law, Competition Policy, Agriculture (including veterinary and phytosanitary legislation), Transport Policy, Taxation, Statistics, Energy, Environment, Cooperation in the Fields of Justice and Home Affairs, Customs Union, External Relations, Common Foreign and Security Policy and Institutions, By Reason of the Accession of Bulgaria and Romania, 2006 O.J. (L 363) 1-80 (EC).Google Scholar

9 However, as a consequence of the process of enlargement and of the linguistic configuration of some new Member States, an effect not planned to date will now occur: a percentage of the citizens of some States do not know the new official language introduced by them (this would be the case of the Baltic countries). See I. Urrutia, Exigencias lingüísticas para el acceso a cargos de representación política: comentario a la Sentencia del Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos de 9 de abril de 2002 (Asunto Podkolzina c. Letonia), Revista Vasca de Administracion Publica no. 68 (2004); I. Lasagabaster, Derecho a elecciones libres, in Convenio Europeo de los Derechos Humanos - Comentario sistematico 651 (I. Lasagabaster ed., 2004). The principle of legal security itself demand an adaptation to the new circumstances.Google Scholar

10 See N. Nic Shuibhne, EC Law and Minority Language Policy 12-18 (2004).Google Scholar

11 See Case T-120/99, Kik v. Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, 2001 E.C.R. II-2235; Case C-361/01, Estate of Cristina Kik v. Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market, 2003 E.C.R. I-8283 (§ 93). See R.L. Creech, Law and language in the European Union 32 (2005).Google Scholar

12 See A. Milian i Massana, Le principe d'égalité des langues au sein des institutions de l'Union européenne et dans le droit communautaire, mythe ou réalité, Revista de Llengua i Dret no. 38, 62 (2002).Google Scholar

13 Draft Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe Art. IV-448.2, “This Treaty may also be translated into any other languages as determined by Member States among those which, in accordance with their constitutional order, enjoy official status in all or part of their territory. A certified copy of such translations shall be provided by the Member States concerned to be deposited in the archives of the Council.”.Google Scholar

14 The issue of granting constitutional status to the languages that are official in the Member States was brought up in the final phase of the negotiations, primarily by the new Spanish delegation established after the Spanish general elections of May 2004, which has assumed certain demands of Catalan political parties. The initial intention would be to recognize the right to petition in its double aspect of active and passive use (as regards the reply). This position collides with the reluctance of some Member States, primarily of the French Republic, thus leading to such final wording. Therefore, it would be a “compromise formula,” closer to the interests favouring the maintenance of the current status quo than to the more progressive positions.Google Scholar

15 Council Conclusion of 13 June 2005 On the Official Use of Additional Languages Within the Council and Possibly Other Institutions and Bodies of the European Union, 2005 O.J. (C 148) 1-2 (EC).Google Scholar

16 There is a difference between the Spanish and the English (and French) versions of the text. The latter refers to the languages “whose status is recognised by the Constitution of a Member State on all or part of its territory or the use of which as a national language is authorised by law.” The former refers the two conditions together (the constitutional recognition and the legal authorisation of use).Google Scholar

17 See Administrative Arrangement Between the Kingdom of Spain and the Council of the European Union, 2006 O.J. (C 040) 2-3.Google Scholar

18 See G. Von Toggenburg, The EU's Endeavours for its Minorities, in Minority Rights in Europe 216 (S. Trifunovska & F. de Verennes eds., 2001).Google Scholar

19 See Draft EU Constitution, art. III-280. Regarding the scope of this provision, see I. Bernier, La preservation de la diversité linguistique à l'heure de la mondialisation, 42 Les Cahiers de Droit no. 4, 945 (2001).Google Scholar

20 See Draft EU Constitution, art. III-282.Google Scholar

21 EC Treaty, art. 149.2 (formerly art. 126).Google Scholar

22 EC Treaty, art. 13.1 (formerly Art. 6 A).Google Scholar

23 EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, art. 21, 2000 O.J. (C 364) 1.Google Scholar

24 EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, art. 22, 2000 O.J. (C 364) 1; Draft EU Constitution, art. II-82.Google Scholar

25 See de Witte, supra note 4, at 234Google Scholar

26 See Shuibhne, supra note 10, at 293; N. Labrie, La construction linguistique de la Communauté européenne 24 (1993); B. de Witte, The Impact of European Community Rules on Linguistic Policies of the Members States, in Language policy for the European Community 164 (F. Coulmas ed., 1991).Google Scholar

27 About the linguistic effects provoked as a consequence of non-linguistic regulations, see B. de Witte, Surviving in Babel? Language Rights and European Integration, in The Protection of Minorities and Human Rights 287 (Y. Dinstein & M. Tabory eds., 1992). See also Labrie, supra note 26, at 160.Google Scholar

28 Doc. CHARTE 4237/00, CONTRIB 110, of 18 April 2000, “Projet de Charte des droits fondamentaux de l'Union Européenne”; Doc. CHARTE 4352/00, CONTRIB 216, of 8 June 2000, “Projet de Charte des droits fondamentaux de l'Union Européenne”; Doc. CHARTE 4420/00, CONTRIB 276, of 19 July 2000, “Projet de Charte des droits fondamentaux de l'Union Européenne”.Google Scholar

29 The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU has seven Chapters (Chapter one: Dignity; Chapter two: Freedoms; Chapter three: Equality; Chapter four: Solidarity; Chapter five: Citizens’ Rights; Chapter six: Justice; and Chapter seven: General Provisions).Google Scholar

30 The document that contains the linguistic policy of the European Union a the “Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. See A New Framework Strategy for Multilingualism, COM (2005) 596 final (Nov. 22, 2005) (not published).Google Scholar

31 Case 11/70, Internationale Handelsgesellschaft v. Einfuhr und Vorratstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel, 1970 E.C.R. I-1125.Google Scholar

32 Case 4/73, Nold v. Commision, 1974 E.C.R. 491, at 508, para 14.Google Scholar

33 The European Charter of Regional or Minority Languages has been signed by all the member States except Belgium, Estonia, Greece, Ireland, Latvia, Lithuania and Portugal; besides, the Czech Republic, France, Italy, Malta and Poland haven't ratified it.Google Scholar

34 See Conseil Constitutionnel, Décision n° 99-412 DC, 15 juin 1999 (Charte Européenne des langues régionales ou minoritaires) Recueil p 71 JO 18.6.1999, p. 8974.Google Scholar

35 See de Witte, supra note 4, at 217.Google Scholar

36 See von Toggenburg, supra note 17, at 227.Google Scholar

37 See Shuibhne, supra note 10, at 233.Google Scholar

38 Preamble of the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages (emphasis added).Google Scholar

39 See COE's Explanatory Report on the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, at http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Reports/Html/148.htm Google Scholar

40 Draft EU Constitution, art. I-2.Google Scholar

41 Draft EU Constitutiona, art. I-1.2.Google Scholar

42 Case C-2/92, Bostock, 1994 E.C.R. I-955.Google Scholar

43 Case C-260/89, ERT, 1991 E.C.R. I-2925.Google Scholar

44 Case C-299/95, Kremzow, 1997 E.C.R. I-2629.Google Scholar

45 See F. de Varennes, The linguistic rights of minorities in Europe, in Minority rights in Europe, supra note 18, at 19.Google Scholar

46 European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages, art. 7.1.c.Google Scholar

47 European Parliament: Report on the alleged abuse of the Valencian Land Law known as the LRAU and its effects on European citizens (Committee on Petitions; Rapporteur Janelly Fourtou) Final A6-0382/2005.Google Scholar

48 Declaration of the European Parliament lesser-used language and national minority Intergroup at Strasbourg (24-May-2006), see in http://www.eblul.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=93&Itemid=37&lang=en Google Scholar

49 European Council meeting in Laeken, 14-15 December 2001, Presidency Conclusions: Annex I: Laeken Declaration on the future of the European Union (SN 300/1/01 REV 1), paragraph I.Google Scholar

50 Laeken Declaration on the future of the European Union (SN 300/1/01 REV 1), paragraph I, p. 20.Google Scholar

51 Laeken Declaration on the future of the European Union (SN 300/1/01 REV 1), paragraph I, p. 22.Google Scholar

52 European Council meeting in Copenhagen, 21-22 June 1993, Presidency Conclusions; paragraph 7 A.iii.Google Scholar

53 European Council meeting in Luxembourg, 12-13 December 1997, Presidency Conclusions, paragraph 14-16.Google Scholar

54 Regular Report from the Commission on Slovakia's Progress Towards Accession (1998).Google Scholar

55 Regular Report from the Commission on Slovakia's Progress Towards Accession (1999).Google Scholar

56 Composite Paper: Reports on progress towards accession by each of the candidate countries, where we can read “on minorities, many of the weaknesses identified in the last regular reports have been addressed. The Estonian Parliament adopted amendments to the Citizenship law to allow stateless children to become citizens. The Slovak parliament adopted minority language legislation. Nonetheless, some candidate countries continue to face difficulties in finding the right balance between legitimate strengthening of the state language and the protection of minority language rights. In this context the language law in Estonia and draft legislation in Latvia fall short of meeting international standards…”Google Scholar

57 Communication from the Commission. Comprehensive monitoring report on the state of preparedness for EU membership of Bulgaria and Romania COM (2005) 534 (Oct. 25, 2005).Google Scholar

58 See Council Regulation 533/2004, On the Establishment of Partnerships in the Framework of Stabilisation and Association Process, 2004 O.J. (L 86) 01 (EC), as amendment by Regulation 269/2006, 2006 O.J. (L 47) 7 (EC).Google Scholar

59 Council Decision of 20 February 2006 On the Principles, Priorities and Conditions Contained in the Accession Partnership with Croatia and Repealing Decision 2004/648/EC, 2006 O.J. (L 055) 30-43 (EC).Google Scholar

60 Id.Google Scholar

61 Council Decision of 30 January 2006 On the Principles, Priorities and Conditions Contained in the European Partnership with the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and Repealing Decision 2004/518/EC, 2006 O.J. (L 035) 57-72 (EC).Google Scholar

62 Id.Google Scholar

63 Council Decision of 30 January 2006 On the Principles, Priorities and Conditions Contained in the European Partnership with Albania and Repealing Decision 2004/519/EC, 2006 O.J. (L 035) 1-18 (EC).Google Scholar

64 Council Decision of 30 January 2006 On the Principles, Priorities and Conditions Contained in the European Partnership with Bosnia and Herzegovina and Repealing Decision 2004/515/EC, 2006 O.J. (L 035) 19-31 (EC).Google Scholar

65 See Council Regulation 390/2001 of 26 February 2001 On assistance to Turkey in the Framework of the Pre-accession Strategy, 2001 O.J. (L 58) 1 (EC). See Council Decision 235/2001, 2001 O.J. (L 85) 13 (EC); Decision 398/2003, 2003 O.J. (L 145) 40 (EC).Google Scholar

66 T. Skutnabb-Kangas and S. Buçak, How the Kurds are Deprived of Linguistic Human Rights, in Linguistic human rights - Overcoming linguistic discrimination 366 (T. Skutnabb-Kangas & R. Phillipson eds., 1995) (“Turkey does more, with more brutal means, and more overtly, than any other country in the word to actively kill a language, Kurdish (…) the international community is aware that Turkey follows a policy of genocide, physical and cultural, and linguicide.”).Google Scholar

67 Council Decision of 23 January 2006 On the Principles, Priorities and Conditions Contained in the Accession Partnership with Turkey, 2006 O.J. (L 22) 34 (EC) (especially paragraph 3.1 “short-term priorities”).Google Scholar

68 Id. (“Ensure cultural diversity and promote respect for and protection of minorities in accordance with the European Convention on Human Rights and the principles laid down in the Council of Europe's Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities and in line with best practice in Member States.- Guarantee legal protection of minorities, in particular as regards the enjoyment of property rights in line with Protocol No 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights.- Ensure effective access to radio/TV broadcasting in languages other than Turkish. Remove outstanding obstacles, particularly with regard to local and regional private broadcasters.- Adopt appropriate measures to support the teaching of languages other than Turkish.”).Google Scholar

69 See von Toggenburg, supra note 18, at 225.Google Scholar