ACFC/44DOC(2012)001 rev PART V: 1. PUBLIC AND PRIVATE USE OF MINORITY LANGUAGES USE OF MINORITY LANGUAGES IN PUBLIC, IN THE ADMINISTRATION AND IN THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM 51. Language rights are effective only if they can be enjoyed in the public sphere. Article 10 of the Framework Convention contains the main principles relating to the right to use minority languages orally and in writing, in private and in public, including – under certain conditions - in relations with administrative authorities. Given the importance of this right, it is essential that any decision related to language policies and the enjoyment of language rights is made in close consultation with minority representatives to ensure that the concerns of persons belonging to national minorities are effectively duly taken into account. 1.1. Official language laws or ‘state language’ laws 52. The right to use one’s language in private and in public, orally and in writing, freely and without interference, is considered one of the principal means to assert and preserve linguistic identity. While the right to use a minority language must never be interfered with, Article 10.1 also limits state interference in the public use of a minority language, such as in public places and in the presence of others. Language legislation may restrict the sole use of minority languages only in cases where the activities of private undertakings, organisations or institutions affect a legitimate public interest, such as public security, health, protection of consumer and employment rights, or safety in the workplace. The necessity and proportionality of any such measure must be established and the rights and interests of the individuals concerned taken into account in each case. The concept of legitimate public interest must thus be interpreted narrowly. As regards consumer rights, for instance, health and safety implications (such as those related to medication) shall prevail over questions of mere preference of the majority of consumers for the official language. 53. States may adopt laws aimed at strengthening and protecting the official language(s).56 This legitimate aim, however, must be pursued in a manner that is in line with the rights contained in Articles 10 and 11 and other relevant provisions of the Framework Convention and its general spirit of encouraging tolerance and mutual understanding within society. Given the explicit right, contained in Article 10.1, of persons belonging to national minorities to use their language freely and without interference, state language laws must in particular not infringe on the private sphere of a person. Measures aimed at promoting official languages must be implemented in a way that respects the identity and the linguistic needs of persons belonging to national minorities. Authorities must thus seek to strike an appropriate balance between the protection of the official language(s) and the linguistic rights of persons belonging to national minorities. In this regard, promotional and incentive-based measures are a much more effective approach towards strengthening knowledge and use of the official language(s) by all members of the population than any form of coercion. 54. Some states have established and implement punitive measures such as the imposition of fines or the withdrawal of professional licenses in order to impose the use of the official language.57 The Advisory Committee considers that sanctions of whatever nature for not complying with the provisions of state language laws must strictly respect the limit of proportionality and the existence of a clearly demonstrated, legitimate and overriding public interest. In this regard, the Advisory Committee has held that the mere legal possibility of imposing fines, whether on legal persons or self-employed natural persons, for using their 56 In a number of countries, the official language (as referred to in Article 14.3 of the Framework Convention and the Explanatory Report) is termed as ‘state language’ and implies an important state identification function of language. 57 Third Opinion on the Slovak Republic; First and Second Opinion on Estonia. 17