[Editorial note:Analogous letters were sent to:
Human Rights Committee and Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance (UN),
Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (OSCE),
European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, Parliamentary Assembly and Commissioner for Human Rights (CoE).
See their relevant recommendations to Latvia in the appendix below]
Mr. Torsten Schackel
Acting Secretary of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination
Human Rights Treaties Branch
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
UNOG-OHCHR, CH-1211 Geneva 10, Switzerland
11 February 2009
Latvia: Language Demands Stiffened. Opinions of
International Organizations and Minority Representatives Ignored
Dear Sir,
When in a defactobilingualcountry[1]oneofthelanguagesisdeclaredto be thesingle official oneatthelegislativelevel, butthelanguageofmorethanone third of the population is declared to be foreign language[2], then special institutions and disproportionate sanctions are used in order to effectuate corresponding laws in practice. Besides, the already achieved status quo without efficient external influence inevitably deflects to the advantage of a legally protected language.
In recent years, particularly in 2008, the disposition of stiffening of language legislation and the practice, which totally contravenes the international recommendations given to Latvia, including those by CERD[3], as described below, became apparent in several ways instantly.
1. Financing of punitive measures
Sanctions in the form of fines for failuretoobservegovernmentregulationsonthestate language usage are provided for by a special section of Code of Administrative Violations, including liability for 13 types of offences. Impositionoffinespertains to the State Language Centre.
Financing of the Centre is continuously growing[4]: 2006 – 113,000 (including salary of inspectors, mainly those, who impose fines – 51,000), 2007 – 203,000 (129,000), 2008 – 291,000 (204,000) LVL[5]. As regards financing of the program of support for teaching of the Latvian language, a quite opposite trend has been noted: 2006 – 771,000; 2007 – 725,000; 2008 – 485,000 LVL. Dynamics of ratiooffinancingoftheintegrativeand punitive measures: 2006 – 6.8:1; 2007 – 3.6:1; 2008 – 1.67:1 accordingly.
On 2 February 2009 a concept developed by the Ministry of Justice[6], which provides for different variants of amalgamation of institutions engaged in the state language–related issues, was submitted to the Cabinet of Ministers for consideration. As a preferential variant, merging of the Centre with the State Language Agency (supervised bytheMinistryofEducationandScience) is being considered under aegis of the former and increasing total financing of the institution up to 745,000 LVL.
In 2006 theStateLanguageCentre received 483 complaints, carried out 1308 inspections of observance of State Language Law (5462 people were examined). The Centre heard 557 administrative cases, imposed fines in 553 cases (total sum of LVL 8760)[7].
In 2007 theStateLanguageCentre received 579 complaints, carried out 3803 inspections of observance of State Language Law (5908 people were examined). The Centre heard 2063 administrative cases, imposed fines in 721 cases (total sum of LVL 12,320)[8].
Onecan infer about the nature of activity of the Centre within the last three months from headlines of communications by News Agency LETA given below:
Two companies warned for advertising captions made only in foreign language (26.01.2009)
Fines imposed on company’s officers for sending e-mail letters in a foreign language (16.01.2009)
Fine imposed for conclusion of employment contract with a taxi driver, who can’t speak state language (14.01.2009)
Several nurses fined for disuse of the Latvian language at the state hospital (05.01.2009)
Fine imposed for employment of a taxi driver without checking of a document certifying his knowledge of the state language (30.12.2008)
Two coaches of the sports school fined for disuse of the Latvian language (18.12.2008)
Fine of 100 LVL imposed for selling goods without user instructions in the state language (02.12.2008)
In November, 11 bus drivers in Riga were fined for disuse of the state language (20.11.2008)
Fine imposed for selling radio-controlled toys without user instructions in Latvian (14.11.2008)
The State Language Centre imposed fines on five bus drivers for disuse of Latvian (04.11.2008)
Three teachers fined for failure to observe the state language regulations (03.11.2008)
2. Stiffening of sanctions
On 18 December 2008theParliamentadoptedamendmentstoCode of Administrative Violations[9], which provide for broadening of the spectrum of sanctions and increasing of amounts of some fines. The author of the initial draft, i.e., the State Language Centre in the annotation[10] indicated that in the case of adoption it would be possible to impose additionally 135 fines per year (total sum of LVL 6500), i.e., to increase the number and the amount of fines in comparison with current data for 2007 by 19% and 53 % accordingly.
In the final reading of the draft law amendments by Members of Parliament were accepted providing for, particularly, establishment of a compulsory lower – limit fine at the level of LVL 25 for the offence provided for by Article 201.26 “Disuse of state language when performing professional and official duties”. Violations of this Article made 79.6% of all offences revealed by the Centre during a period of time from 2002 to 2006.[11] Evidently, the difference between the number of revealed offences (2063) and the imposed fines (721) in 2007 can be explained by the opportunity to avoid fines available in the previous version of the Code.
3. Interference with commercial activities
3.1. Issues related to the knowledge of the state language are subject to Regulations of the Cabinet of Ministers No.296 dated 20.08.2000[12]. There are two annexes to the Regulations, which contain a list of positions and professions with indication of the level of necessary language proficiency set to each of them. The first annex covers public and municipal institutions, the second - private companies.
The list in the first annex is comprehensive and contains several thousands names of professions, including, for instance, a ventriloquist and a hypnotist. The second list remained actually blank for a long time, after amendments of 2006 it contained 48 professions, and after amendments of July 2008 it contains already more than 1200 professions. Provisions connectedwiththelastexpansionofsaidlist, willcomeintoforcegradually in 2009 – 2010, depending upon the required level of the language proficiency. These provisions apply to people, who already hold their positions, and the state doesn’t offer any possibilities for training.
The Regulations contain a provision, which recommends an employer to compile a list of positions and professions subject to compulsory attestation.
InSeptember 2008 the Ministry of Education and Science submitted redrafted Regulations[13]for consideration by the Cabinet of Ministers. In the document it is proposed to codify a number of different regulations of the Cabinet of Ministers, which regulate both the process of attestation for employment and examinations for approval of permanent residence permit, as well as the level of corresponding fees. Shortcomingsofalleffectiveregulations enlisted above have been preserved in the draft.
Besides, the employers are obliged to prepare lists of positions and professions subject to attestation. According to the draft, the new regulations must come into force on 1 May 2009. Nevertheless, under amendments to the Code of Administrative Violations adopted on 18 December 2008 (see Section 2) liability of employers for failure to submit the list of professions has been already set from January 2009.
In October 2008 theMinistryofJusticesubmitteddraft amendments to the Labour Law forconsiderationbytheCabinetofMinisters[14], obliging to include into any employment contract a provision that specifies the level of state language proficiency deemed necessary to an employee. Thedocumentstillis under consideration without further results.
3.2. The Higher Schools Law[15] (Section 56, para. 3) currently in force regulates the language of instruction only at state–run higher education institutions. This language is Latvian with some exceptions.
Duringconsiderationofthenew “HigherEducationLaw”[16] (Section 6) intheCabinetofMinisters these provisions were assigned also to private higher education institutions. After public protests of minority organizations before submitting the draft law to the Parliament (9 July 2008), the requirement of compulsory use of Latvian as a medium of instruction was softened a bit. The draft refers now only to those “private higher education institutions, which get financing from state budget”. On16October 2008 the draft law was adopted in the first reading in the Parliament.
4. Restrictions on informing the population in minority languages
Pursuant to Section 21 para. 1 of State Language Law (alldraftamendmentstosaidlaw,submittedafteritsadoptionin 1999, were submitted only by the opposition and they were rejected) any public information, provided by all kinds of public institutions, is provided solely in Latvian. Exceptions, when otherlanguagesmightbeused along withLatvian, aresubjecttotheRegulations of the Cabinet of Ministers No.130[17]: these are international events, emergency situations, information materials issued upon request.
Impossibility of actual implementation of this provisions in a bilingual country has forced authorities to make amendments, inter alia, to the Code of Administrative Violations (see Section 2), which provides for imposition of sanctions on officials in a form of warning or fines from 25 to 100 LVLfor co-usage of non-official languages in information. Inannotationtothedraftlaw[18] as an example of violation there was indicated informing of population about utility payments.
5. Ignoring minority opinions
Minorities are not represented in the Government, but they have two groups in the Parliament: “Centre of Concord” and “For Human Rights in United Latvia” /FHRUL/ (in general 23 MPs out of 100; ethnic non-Latvians having voting right make 27 % of voters).
Exactly these groups objected in debates and voted against amendments to the Code of Administrative Violations submitted by the Government (See Sections 2, 3.1, 4) in all four readings (15 May 2008, 12 June 2008, 13 November 2008, 18 December 2008). In the second reading, there were amendments rejected by the Parliament, providing exclusion from the draft law of the provisions on fines for employers (see Section 3.1.) and for informing of the population in Russian (See section 4); the provisions mentioned entailed objections of the Confederation of Employers and Ombudsman. In the third reading the Parliament rejected a proposal to harmonize thedatesofintroductionoffinesforemployerswiththedatewhen obligation to submit the lists (see Section 3.1) comes into effect. Also the Parliament rejected a proposal to give the Government a task to expand the list of exemptions, when it is allowed to inform population in minority languages, in order to soften introduction of fines for informing population (See Section 4).
Upon acceptance of theamendments to the Code thegroup FHRUL sent a reasoned letter to the President with a call to return law to the Parliament for revision. In said letter, as well as in the debates, corresponding recommendations were mentioned, including the international ones. The President, contrary to existingtradition, refusedtodiscussthis request publicly, with involvement of experts, and sent a formal reply without any argumentation.
Instead, on that day, when it was possible to organize the discussion (22 December 2008), the President declared resumption of activities of the Minority Advisory Council existing during his predecessor Guntis Ulmanis (1993-1998). Members of the Council were appointed without public consultations; the Council was called for the first meeting on 23 January 2009.
Also the Parliament rejected a number of other initiatives ofthegroup “For Human Rights in United Latvia”, for which solely the MPs of both abovementioned Groups were voting:
1) proposals on amendments to Law on Local Self-Government (5 June 2008 and 17 July 2008) andtotheConstitution (15 January 2009) as regards usage of minority languages at the level of local self-governments in compliance with the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities;
2) amendments to the draft state budget (14 November 2008) that provide for increasing of support for teaching of the state language by decreasing funds for maintenance of the State Language Centre;
3) introduction of measures for preventing unemployment among people, whose knowledge of the state language is insufficient (27 November 2008).
FHRUL received only formal replies to the questions[19] put to the Minister for Justice (No.74/j9) and to the Prime Minister (No.83/j9) on validity of expansion of the list of professions subject to attestation (Refer to Cl.3.1.) set in the Regulations of the Cabinet of Ministers.
Upon demands of civil society, two representatives of minority organizations, for the first time ever, were invited for discussions of the draft new Regulations of the Cabinet of Ministers as concerning language attestation (See Section 3.1. and footnotes). Duringdiscussionon9 December 2008, seven out of eight their proposals (the exception being extension of the term of language attestation for one of the categories) were turned down.
In view of the aforesaid we consider it necessary to takemoreeffective steps of interference with language policy of the Government of Latvia on behalf of your organization, apart from giving one more recommendation, which the government does not wish to implement.
Yours sincerely,
Tatjana Ždanoka (Tatyana Zhdanok),
Memberof the European Parliament from Latvia
Jakovs Pliners (Yakov Pliner),
Chairman of the Parliamentary group “For Human Rights in United Latvia”
Natālija Jolkina (Nataliya Yolkina)
Co-Chairpersonof the LatvianHumanRightsCommittee
Encl. Recommendations concerning language policy given to Latvia by international human rights organizations, 2001-2008
Appendix
Recommendations concerning language policy
given to Latvia by international human rights organizations, 2001-2008
United Nations bodies
Human Rights Committee, 2003:
19. (..) The State party should take all necessary measures to prevent negative effects of this policy on the rights of individuals under the Covenant, and, if required, adopt measures such as the further development of translation services.
(Concluding observations: Latvia. CCPR/CO/79/LVA)
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, 2003:
9. (..) The Committee recommends that the State party ensure that the State Language Law does not result in unnecessary restrictions that may have the effect of creating or perpetuating ethnic discrimination. The Committee calls on the State party to ensure that vulnerable groups, such as prisoners, sick and poor persons, among non-Latvian speakers have the possibility of communicating with the relevant authorities through provision of, if necessary, translation facilities
(Concluding observations: Latvia. CERD/C/63/CO/7)
Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, 2008:
89. The Special Rapporteur recommends that Latvia’s language policy be revisited, aiming to better reflect the multilingual character of its society. This process should aim to promote the cohabitation of all the communities in Latvia on the basis of two principles: (..) second, the respect for the existence of minority languages spoken by sizeable communities, in particular Russian, in full compliance with the Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities (..) Specific measures that could be taken to improve the situation of linguistic minorities include extending free-of-charge Latvian language courses for all residents in Latvian territory
(Report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, Doudou Diene. Addendum. Mission to Latvia. A/HRC/7/19/Add.3)
Council of Europe bodies
Commissioner for Human Rights, 2004:
75. In general I believe the Latvian authorities should endeavour to provide more support to members of language minorities, and allow them to use their mother tongues for official business, as suggested in Article 10 of the framework convention (..).
Conclusions and recommendations (..) 7. Facilitate the use of minority languages, including in written correspondence with the administration; 8. Increase the financial resources of Latvian language training programmes, so as to enable all members of national minorities desiring to improve their knowledge of the officiallanguage to do so without charge;
(Report by Mr. Alvaro Gil-Robles, Commissioner for Human Rights, on his visit to Latvia, 5-8 October 2003. CommDH(2004)3)
Commissioner for Human Rights, 2007:
44. The 2003 report recommended facilitating the use of minority languages in the administration, particularly in written correspondence between persons belonging to the national minorities and administrative staff. Not only has there been no change to the relevant legislation, but it would appear that all discussion of this topic has been dropped. Officially, only the Latvian language can be used in communications with the authorities or administrative departments. This rigid legal provision is an obstacle to the integration of minorities. Fortunately, there is some flexibility in practice. Some local administrations and institutions agree to consider applications in minority languages. For instance, more than half of all complaints submitted to the National Human Rights Office are in the Russian language. Other departments, e.g. in Daugavpils, provide translators for such communications. The Commissioner renews the previous recommendation and invites the Latvian authorities to devote particular attention to it.
Summary of recommendations (..) 7) To facilitate the use of minority languages in written correspondence between people belonging to the national minorities and the administration. 8) To ensure that the Agency in charge of assessing the quality of education given the same attention to Latvian language and minority language schools and textbooks.
(Memorandum to the Latvian Government. CommDH(2007)9)
Parliamentary Assembly, 2001:
5. The Assembly calls on the Latvian authorities to pursue their policy towards consolidation of democratic reforms and social integration by undertaking the following: (..) iii. to provide additional resources to the Naturalisation Board and the National Programme for Latvian Language Training;
(Resolution 1236 (2001))
Parliamentary Assembly, 2006:
17. The Parliamentary Assembly therefore invites the Latvian authorities to: (..) 17.11. devise and introduce means of encouraging and guaranteeing the civic integration of ethnic communities, including their integration in the political process and the public service, and, inter alia: 17.11.1. to amend legislation so as to make it possible to use the minority language in relations between national minorities and the administrative authorities in areas where they live in substantial numbers;
(Resolution 1527 (2006))
European Commission against Racism and Intolerance, 2002:
14. (..) Article 5 of the Law stipulates that any languages used in Latvia other than Latvia, with the exception of the Liv language, shall be considered as “other” languages. ECRI regrets that this provision appears to contribute to the creation of an atmosphere of antagonism in language policy with regard to the use of all other languages on the territory of Latvia which might qualify as regional or minority languages.
16. It is a general principle of the State Language Law (Article 2) that the use of language in private institutions, organisations and companies is regulated only where there is a legitimate public interest (..) ECRI strongly urges the Latvian authorities to ensure that implementation of the Law is strictly in accordance with this principle (..).
17. The State Language Law explicitly prohibits state, municipal and judicial institutions from accepting documents from individuals in any language other than Latvian, except for some special situations (..) these provisions adversely affect the possibility for the members of the non-Latvian ethnic community to access public institutions (..) ECRI strongly urges the Latvian authorities to keep the Law under review and to ensure that provisions regulating the use of language in contacts with public institutions do not result in reduced access to such institutions, particularly by people with poor command of Latvian and limited resources.