Romania the Advisory Committee mentioned that there was in practice no instruction in the Roma language in spite of the considerable size of the Roma community living in this country. The Advisory Committee called for measures to ensure adequate opportunities to be taught the Roma language.45 The Council of Europe and its Language Policy Division possess enormous competence on the necessary preconditions and different modalities of successful language education programmes, including bilingual and multilingual education.46 Many European States have also undertaken specific obligations under the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages. The scope of obligations In its Opinions, the Advisory Committee has encouraged governments to take a “proactive approach” even when the expressed demand appears low (Opinion on the United Kingdom). It has also expressed satisfaction at low numerical thresholds for the creation of classes (in e.g. Ukraine 5 pupils in rural areas and 8-10 pupils in non-rural areas; in Sweden 1 pupil for some languages and 5 pupils for others but conditioned upon the availability of teachers, something which was criticized by the Advisory Committee; Austria reported a minimum of 7 pupils for a class (accompanied with detailed provisions) and a maximum number of 20 pupils per class). The Advisory Committee has conversely found that a threshold of 20 pupils for a class in a Sorbian-language school “is very high from the point of Article 14 of the Framework Convention”.47 States should not introduce further qualifications to the rights enshrined in Article 14, than those contained in the Framework Convention. In its Opinion on Norway the Advisory Committee found: ‘The existing regulations envisage bilingual basic education, as a maximum, for minorities other than Sami and Kven-Finnish (in the designated regions) only until they have acquired a sufficiently good knowledge of Norwegian to be able to follow the ordinary teaching programme. Bearing in mind that the guarantees of Article 14 are not conditioned upon lack of knowledge of the state language, the Advisory Committee considers that the authorities should examine to what extent there is demand amongst the national minorities, and in the regions not covered by the said guarantees, to receive instruction in or of their language and, depending on the results, improve the current legal and practical situation if necessary.’48 When developing and implementing the concrete modalities for language education, State Parties must reflect and decide upon: the scope and volume of the teaching of or in minority languages (including on the levels of education and numbers of hours; public school system or informal/private teaching); the optional or compulsory nature of teaching; 45 Advisory Committee Opinion on Romania ACFC/INF/OP/I(2001)1. See for instance the report written by Pádraig Ó Riagáin and Georges Lüdi, “Bilingual Education: Some Policy Issues”, Language Policy Division, DG IV, Directorate of School, Out-of-School and Higher Education, Council of Europe, 2003. It includes as an appendix a useful Checklist for decision makers in the context of policies for bilingual education. 47 Advisory Committee Opinions on Austria ACFC/INF/OP/I(2002)009, Ukraine ACFC/INF/OP/I(2002)010, the United Kingdom ACFC/INF/OP/I(2002)6, and Germany ACFC/INF/OP/I(2002)008, paragraphs 59-60. 48 Advisory Committee Opinion on Norway ACFC/INF/OP/I(2003)003, paragraph 59. 46 26