1 Genesis 11:7.Google Scholar

2 Indeed, this theme is clearly in sight in Genesis 11:6.Google Scholar

3 Iñigo Urrutia & Iñaki Lasagabaster, Language Rights as a General Principle of Community Law, 8 German Law Journal 479 (2007).Google Scholar

4 It never becomes quite clear which exactly are the claims being made.Google Scholar

5 Urrutia, & Lasagabaster, , supra note 3, 489.Google Scholar

6 See further Oppermann, T., Das Sprachenregime der Europäischen Union — reformbedürftig? Ein Thema für den Post-Nizza-Prozeß, 4 Zeitschrift für Europarechtliche Studien 1, 17 (2001).Google Scholar

7 Also see further Proposals from the Group of Intellectuals for Intercultural Dialogue set up at the initiative of the European Commission, A Rewarding Challenge. How the multiplicity of languages could strengthen Europe 9 (2008), available at: http://ec.europa.eu/education/policies/lang/doc/maalouf/report_en.pdf, last accessed 25 September 2008: “The bilateral relations between the peoples of the European Union should hinge by way of priority on the languages of the two peoples involved rather than on another language.”Google Scholar

8 For instance in Germany; see further, for judicial proceedings, § 184 Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz (Code of court constitutions), Bundesgesetzblatt (Federal Gazette) 1975 I p. 1077, and in France; see further Art. 2 of the French Constitution (English translation available at: http://www.assembleenationale.fr/english/8ab.asp, last accessed 25 September 2008).Google Scholar

9 But there are exceptions: in the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg laws are published, according to Art. 2 — Langue de la législation (language of legislation) — of the Loi du 24 février 1984 sur le régime des langues (law of 24 February 1984 on the language regime), available at: http://www.tlfq.ulaval.ca/axl/Europe/luxembourgloi.htm, exclusively in French, although according to Art. 1 of the same law “La langue nationale des Luxembourgeois est le luxembourgeois“ (The national language of the Luxemburgers is the Luxemburgish).Google Scholar

10 English translation available at: http://www.vescc.com/constitution/spain-constitution-eng.html, last accessed 25 September 2008.Google Scholar

11 See further Human Rights Committee (HRC), comm. No. 760/1997, Diergaardt et al. v. Namibia, views of 6 September 2000, available at: http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/CCPR.CO.81.NAM.En?OpenDocument&Click, last accessed 25 September 2008.Google Scholar

12 See further Art. 3 of the 1990 Constitution, available at: http://www.grnnet.gov.na/aboutnam.html, last accessed 25 September 2008.Google Scholar

13 There are 28 living languages listed for Namibia; see further Languages of Namibia, available at: http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=NA, last accessed 25 September 2008.Google Scholar

14 See further HRC, Diergaardt, supra note 11.Google Scholar

15 Section 16 (1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, available at: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/, last accessed 25 September 2008.Google Scholar

16 English translation available at http://www.admin.ch/org/polit/00083/index.html?lang=en, last accessed 25 September 2008.Google Scholar

17 See further the official website of the Federal Tribunal at: http://www.bger.ch/index/jurisdiction/jurisdiction-inherit-template/jurisdiction-recht.htm (last accessed 25 September 2008): “Die Urteile werden in der Sprache des kantonalen Verfahrens verfasst und werden nicht übersetzt” (The judgments are drafted in the language of the procedure in the Kanton, and are not translated).Google Scholar

18 According to Art. 76 of the Gesetz über institutionelle Reformen für die deutschsprachige Gemeinschaft vom 31.12.1983. Inoffizielle koordinierte Übersetzung des Gesetzes (Law on Institutional Reforms for the German Language Community of 31 December 1983. Unofficial coordinated translation of the law), Belgisches Staatsblatt (Belgian Gazette) of 18 January 1984, an official German translation of legal texts is provided in accordance with the available budgetary means. While those translations are promulgated by the King, they do not appear to be authentic versions of the law translated.Google Scholar

19 There are 24 living languages are listed for South Africa; see further Languages of South Africa, available at: http://www.ethnologue.com/show_country.asp?name=ZA, last accessed 25 September 2008.Google Scholar

20 See further Constitution of the Republic of South Africa 1996, adopted on 8 May 1996 and amended on 11 October 1996 by the Constitutional Assembly, Act 108 of 1996, ISBN 0–620-20214-9, available at: http://www.polity.org.za/article.php?a_id=130703, last accessed 25 September 2008.Google Scholar

Languages Section 6.

“(1) The official languages of the Republic are Sepedi, Sesotho, Setswana, siSwati, Tshivenda, Xitsonga, Afrikaans, English, isiNdebele, isiXhosa and isiZulu.Google Scholar

1. (2)

   (2) Recognising the historically diminished use and status of the indigenous languages of our people, the state must take practical and positive measures to elevate the status and advance the use of these languages.Google Scholar

2. (3)

   (3) (a) The national government and provincial governments may use any particular official languages for the purposes of government, taking into account usage, practicality, expense, regional circumstances and the balance of the needs and preferences of the population as a whole or in the province concerned; but the national government and each provincial government must use at least two official languages. (b) Municipalities must take into account the language usage and preferences of their residents.Google Scholar

3. (4)

   (4) The national government and provincial governments, by legislative and other measures, must regulate and monitor their use of official languages. Without detracting from the provisions of subsection (2), all official languages must enjoy parity of esteem and must be treated equitably.”Google Scholar

21 See further Art. 111 of the UN Charter, Yearbook of the United Nations 953 (1969).Google Scholar

22 According to the rules of procedure of the main UN organs: see further e.g. Rule 41 of the Provisional Rules of Procedure of the Security Council, available at: http://www.un.org/docs/sc/scrules.htm; Rule 51 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Assembly, available at: http://www.un.org/ga/ropga.shtml, last accessed 25 September 2008; this version originates in Res. 3190 (XXVIII) of 1973.Google Scholar

23 See further Art. XVI (6) of the Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, UNTS vol. 1867 p. 3; no. 2 (c) (i) GATT 1994.Google Scholar

24 See further Art. 12 of the Statute of the Council of Europe, UNTS vol. 87 p. 103, ETS No. 1.Google Scholar

25 Rule 34 (2) of the Rules of Court (July 2007) of the Eur. Court H.R., available at: http://www.echr.coe.int, last accessed 25 September 2008.Google Scholar

26 Alexander von Bogdandy, Die Europäische Union und das Völkerrecht kultureller Vielfalt — Aspekte einer wunderbaren Freundschaft, in Pluralistische Gesellschaften und Internationales Recht (Georg Nolte et al. eds), 43 Berichte der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Völkerrecht 69 (2008).Google Scholar

27 Art. 165 (2) of the Treaty Establishing the European Community (EC), OJ 2006, C 321E, p. 37.Google Scholar

28 Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: A New Framework Strategy for Multilingualism, Doc. COM(2005) 596 final of 22 November 2005, available at: http://europa.eu/languages/servlets/Doc?id=913.Google Scholar

29 “Kol'ko jazykov vieš, tol'kokrát si človekom”.Google Scholar

30 See, supra, note 28, pt. I.2 “What is Multilingualism?”.Google Scholar

31 Critical Urrutia & Lasagabaster, supra note 3, 482–483.Google Scholar

32 See further also text at supra note 25.Google Scholar

33 Also see further Group of Intellectuals, supra note 7, 3: “[I]n any human society linguistic … diversity has both advantages and drawbacks, and is a source of enrichment but also a source of tension”.Google Scholar

34 It is the main line in Theodor Schilling, Beyond Multilingualism, forthcoming.Google Scholar

35 Urrutia & Lasagabaster, supra note 3, 486.Google Scholar

36 Id., 500.Google Scholar

37 One exception is Art. 30 of the Belgian Constitution, English translation available at http://www.fed-parl.be/constitution_uk.html, last accessed 25 September 2008.Google Scholar

38 Eur. Court H.R., Igors Dmitrijevs v. Latvia, Judgment of 30 November 2006, not published, available at: http://echr.coe.int/echr/en/hudoc, last accessed 25 September 2008, para. 85, with further references. The judgment is available only in French.Google Scholar

39 This may also apply, with less force, to the “personal adoptive language” whose idea the Group of Intellectuals (note 7), 10, recommends the EU to advocate.Google Scholar

40 Rainer J. Schweizer, Sprache als Kultur- und Rechtsgut, 65 Veröffentlichungen der Vereinigung der deutschen Staatsrechtslehrer 371–372 (2006). A human rights dimension of language is also discussed by Franz C. Mayer, Europäisches Sprachenverfassungsrecht, 44 Der Staat 367, 393 (2005), who sees language as a constituent characteristic of individual identity. In contrast, for Peter Häberle, “Werkstatt Schweiz”: Verfassungspolitik im Blick auf das künftige Gesamteuropa, in id., Europäische Rechtskultur 355, 360 (1997), language is a cultural group right that forms part of the protection of minorities.Google Scholar

41 Of 4 November 1950, UNTS Vol. 213, 221; ETS No. 5.Google Scholar

42 Kahl, Wolfgang, Sprache als Kultur- und Rechtsgut, 65 Veröffentlichungen der Vereinigung der deutschen Staatsrechtslehrer 386, 395 (2006).Google Scholar

43 OJ 2007, C 303, p. 1.Google Scholar

44 Eur. Court H.R., Pretty v. United Kingdom, Judgment of 29 April 2002, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2002-III, para. 65.Google Scholar

45 German Bundesgesetzblatt 1949, 1.Google Scholar

46 This formula goes back to Immanuel Kant and has been developed by Dürig, Günther; see further e.g. Häberle, Peter, Aspekte einer kulturwissenschaftlich-rechtsvergleichenden Verfassungslehre in weltbürgerlicher Absicht, 45 Jahrbuch des öffentlichen Rechts der Gegenwart 555, 557 (1997), and the decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court in Entscheidungen des Bundesverfassungsgerichts, Vol. 87, 209, 228.Google Scholar

47 See further the examples given by Hofmann, Hasso, Die versprochene Menschenwürde, 118 Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts 353, 360 (1993).Google Scholar

48 See further Reinhold Zippelius in: Kommentar zum Bonner Grundgesetz (Drittbearbeitung [third adaptation] December 1989), Art. 1 Abs. 1 und 2, para. 79–80.Google Scholar

49 According to Hofmann (note 47), 364, dignity in the legal sense is a concept concerning relations or communications.Google Scholar

50 See further Schultz, Hans, Gewaltdelikte als Schutz der Menschenwürde im Strafrecht, in Rechtsstaat und Menschenwürde. Festschrift für Werner Maihofer zum 70. Geburtstag, 517, 524 (Arthur Kaufmann et al. eds., 1988).Google Scholar

51 Art. 1 of the EU Fundamental Rights Charter.Google Scholar

52 Eur. Court H.R., Pretty, supra note 44, para. 61.Google Scholar

53 Id. Google Scholar

54 But see further Urrutia & Lasagabaster, supra note 3, 488, who claim for the EU that “[n]o subjective right of use of languages is configured”.Google Scholar

55 See further e.g. Theodor Schilling, Internationaler Menschenrechtsschutz 89, (2004), para. 169, with further references.Google Scholar

56 Eur. Court H.R., Igors Dmitrijevs, supra note 38, para. 85, with further references.Google Scholar

57 See, supra, note 37.Google Scholar

58 See further also Court of First Instance, Case T-120/99, Kik v. OHIM 2001 E.C.R. II-2235, para. 58: “the rules governing languages laid down by Regulation No. 1 cannot be deemed to amount to a principle of Community law”, upheld by ECJ, Case C-361/01 P, Kik v. OHIM 2003 E.C.R. I-8283, para. 82. Contra Urrutia & Lasagabaster (note 3), 489, who try to make the case for language rights as a general principle of Community law.Google Scholar

59 Contra apparently Mayer, supra note 40, 394, who postulates the fundamental right of a person to communicate in her own language with the public authorities that refer to her.Google Scholar

60 See further Eur. Court H.R., Çiçek v. Turkey, Judgment of 27 February 2001, not published, available at: http://echr.coe.int/echr/en/hudoc, para. 187. — As ignorance of the law is no defence, clearly a person in foreign parts must also obey laws and other official texts drafted in another than her own language.Google Scholar

61 See further Art. 5(2), 6(3)(a) and (e) of the ECHR, Art. 14 (3)(a) and (f) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), G.A. Res. 2200A (XXI), 21 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 16) at 52, Art. 8 (2) (a) of the American Convention on Human Rights, 1144 UNTS 123, and also Art. 10 (3) of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities of 1st Feb. 1995, ETS No. 157 (Framework Convention).Google Scholar

62 However, if there is an official capable of speaking a citizen's language, it may be an infringement of human rights to prevent her from doing so; see further HRC, Diergaardt (note 11): infringement of Art. 26 ICCPR.Google Scholar

63 See further Art. 1 of the Framework Convention.Google Scholar

64 Urrutia & Lasagabaster (note 3), 490, claim that “there are signs of emerging common European law on linguistic minorities and minority languages along the line laid down by the Framework Convention and the ECRML” [reference omitted] and without more conclude that “[i]t is the job of the Court of Justice to establish general principles of Community law by comparing the legal frameworks of Member States without requiring that all legal orders are exactly the same” [reference omitted].Google Scholar

65 See, supra, note 61.Google Scholar

66 Of 5 November 1992, ETS No. 148.Google Scholar

67 OJ 2007, C 306, p. 1, Art. 1 (3).Google Scholar

68 Urrutia & Lasagabaster, supra note 3, 490–492.Google Scholar

69 Id., 492.Google Scholar

70 ECJ, Case 4/73, J. Nold Kohlen- und Baustoffgroßhandlung v. Commission of the European Communities, 1974 E.C.R. 491, para. 13, stating that “fundamental rights form an integral part of the general principles of law”.Google Scholar

71 ECJ, Joined Cases 6/90 and 9/90, Andrea Francovich and Danila Bonifaci and others v. Italian Republic, 1991 E.C.R. I-5357, para. 35, stating that “the principle whereby a State must be liable for loss and damage caused to individuals as a result of breaches of Community law for which the State can be held responsible is inherent in the system of the Treaty”.Google Scholar

72 Art 314 EC and 53 of the Treaty on European Union (EU), OJ 2006, C 321 E, p. 5.Google Scholar

73 See further for secondary legislation, based on Art. 290 EC, Art. 1 (1) of the very first Council Regulation, the 1958 Regulation No. 1 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic Community (OJ, English special edition, Series 1 Chapter 1952–58, 59, with later amendments), as amended from time to time, and for the jurisprudence, the Instructions to the Registrar, adopted by the Court of Justice and the Court of First Instance, respectively, which refer to Art. 1 of Regulation No. 1 (Art. 24 of the Instructions to the Registrar of the Court of Justice, OJ 1974, L 350, p. 33, as amended from time to time, and Art 18 (3) of the Instructions to the Registrar of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities, OJ 2007, L 232, p. 1).Google Scholar

74 See further for the founding treaties Art. 314 EC and 53 EU, for secondary legislation see further e.g. ECJ, case 283/81, CILFIT v. Ministero della Sanità, 1982 ECR 3415, para. 18.Google Scholar

75 Art. 21 (3) EC, Art. 41 (4) of the EU Fundamental Rights Charter.Google Scholar

76 See further ECJ, Kik, supra note 58, para. 82.Google Scholar

77 Art. 138 (2) of the Rules of Procedure (of the European Parliament), JO 2005, L 44, p. 1.Google Scholar

78 See further Council Decision of 22 March 2004 adopting the Council's Rules of Procedure, JO 2004, L 106, p. 22, Annex III, pt. 1 (h) (n 1): “The Council confirms that present practice whereby the texts serving as a basis for its deliberations are drawn up in all the languages will continue to apply.”Google Scholar

79 Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, OJ 2008, C 115, p. 1.Google Scholar

80 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, OJ 2005, C 148, p. 1.Google Scholar

81 To date, two such arrangements have been concluded with the Council. See further Administrative arrangement between the Kingdom of Spain and the Council of the European Union, OJ 2006, C 40, p. 2; Administrative arrangement between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Council of the European Union, OJ 2008, C 194, p. 7.Google Scholar

82 Para. 1 of the Administrative arrangements.Google Scholar

83 See further ECJ, Kik, supra note 58, para. 82.Google Scholar

84 Especially by Urrutia & Lasagabaster, supra note 3, 490–491.Google Scholar

85 Especially clear the declaration contained in a letter from the Permanent Representative of Germany, dated 11 May 1995, handed to the Secretary General at the time of signature, on 11 May 1995, available at: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/Commun/ListeDeclarations.asp?NT=157&CM=8&DF=9/30/2008&CL=ENG&VL=1.Google Scholar

86 Urrutia & Lasagabaster, supra note 3, 490, with further references.Google Scholar

87 The first French declaration under former Art. 46 ECHR was made on 3 May 1974, the judgment of the ECJ in Nold, supra, note 70, dates from 14 May 1974.Google Scholar

88 Status as of 18 August 2008.Google Scholar

89 See further Décision no. 99–412 DC 15 juin 1999 (Charte européenne des langues régionales et minoritaires) Recueil p. 71, JORF 18.6.1999, p. 8974, para. 11.Google Scholar

90 Id., para. 12.Google Scholar

91 According to the Explanatory Report, para. 42, “[i]t is possible for a contracting state … to recognise that a particular regional or minority language exists on its territory but consider it preferable … not to extend to that language the benefit of the provisions of Part III …”.Google Scholar

92 Conseil constitutionnel, supra note 89, para. 3.Google Scholar

93 Explanatory Report, supra note 91, para. 43.Google Scholar

94 ECJ, Nold, supra note 70, para. 14.Google Scholar

95 See further especially Art. 2 (2) ECRML, quoted in the text at note 91.Google Scholar

96 These restrictions appear to be compatible with the ECHR; see further Eur. Court H.R., Case “relating to certain aspects of the laws on the use of languages in education in Belgium” v. Belgium (merits), Judgment of 9 February 1967, Series A, No. 4, B. Interpretation adopted by the Court, II. The six questions referred to the Court, No. 7. It is also worth mentioning that in some cases, members of a minority have manifested an interest not to be placed in classes taught in their language, considering that placement discriminatory; see further Eur. Court H.R., Oršuš and others v. Croatia, Judgment of 17 July 2008, not published, available at: http://echr.coe.int/echr/en/hudoc, paras. 65–59.Google Scholar

97 Explanatory Report to the ECRML, para. 90. The words omitted in the quotation “located outside the territory” might be taken to comfort the contrary view. However, they should be understood as referring to a higher court still specifically competent for the territory in question.Google Scholar

98 Id., para. 100.Google Scholar

99 Urrutia & Lasagabaster, supra note 3, 483, refer to “the European Agency for Safety and Health at Work, which is based in Bilbao, and the European Commission Delegation in Barcelona”.Google Scholar

100 Discussed, with very disputable results, by Urrutia & Lasagabaster (note 3), 493.Google Scholar

101 See, supra, notes 77 and 78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

102 See, supra, note 80.Google Scholar

103 See, supra, note 81.Google Scholar

104 See further Urrutia & Lasagabaster (note 3), 484, referring to a decision of the Bureau of the EP.Google Scholar

105 See further, Schilling, supra note 34.Google Scholar

106 See, supra, note 80.Google Scholar