ACFC/44DOC(2012)001 rev minority languages in the private sphere is not compatible with the provisions of the Framework Convention. Equally incompatible with the Framework Convention is the imposition of language inspection systems in the private sector, as they may disproportionately intrude in the private sphere of the individual.58 1.2. Use of minority languages in relations with administrative authorities in areas inhabited by national minorities traditionally or in substantial numbers 55. Article 10.2 provides the conditions under which minority languages may also be used in relations with administrative authorities. This use is without detriment to the official language(s). While states enjoy a margin of discretion with regard to the identification of areas where minorities live “in substantial numbers”, they have a duty to provide clear criteria as to what constitutes “sufficient numbers” or a “sufficiently large number.”59 The possibility of using minority languages in dealings with the administration in all areas where the criteria established by Article 10.2 of the Framework Convention are met may not be left solely to the discretion of the local authorities concerned. It is therefore important to set up clear and transparent procedures on how and when to institute the use of minority languages, including in written form, to ensure that the right is enjoyed in an equal manner. 56. As the rights of Article 10.2 are triggered by one of the two main criteria (substantial number or area traditionally inhabited), they apply also to areas where only a relatively small percentage of persons belonging to national minorities reside, provided that persons belonging to national minorities traditionally inhabit the areas concerned, that there is a request by these persons, and that such a request corresponds to a real need. States should carefully study the demand and assess existing needs in the geographical areas where there is substantial or traditional settlement of persons belonging to minorities, taking also into account the specific local situation.60 ‘Need’ in this context does not imply the inability of persons belonging to national minorities to speak the official language and their consequent dependence on services in their minority language. A threat to the functionality of the minority language as a communication tool in a given region is sufficient to constitute a ‘need’ in terms of Article 10.2 of the Framework Convention.61 Protective arrangements must be in place to maintain services in the minority language, even if it is not widely used, as it may otherwise disappear from the public sphere. In addition, states should not take decisions on the existence of sufficient demand based on discussions held in bodies where persons belonging to national minorities are not effectively represented.62 57. Numerical thresholds must not constitute an undue obstacle to the official use of certain minority languages in areas inhabited by persons belonging to national minorities either traditionally or in substantial numbers. In particular, a requirement that the minority group represents at least half of the population of a district in order to admit use of the minority language contacts with local administrative authorities is not compatible with the Framework Convention.63 Where thresholds exist, they must not be applied rigidly and flexibility and caution should be exercised.64 The Advisory Committee has welcomed the flexibility shown by some local administration officials in applying rigid legal provisions concerning the use of minority languages where, in practice, communication and correspondence in minority languages are still accepted, even if written replies are produced in the official language.65 Overall, the Advisory Committee encourages states to give careful 58 First Opinion on Latvia. First Opinion on Armenia. 60 First Opinion on Bulgaria. 61 First Opinion on the Netherlands. 62 First Opinion on Italy. 63 Second Opinion on Bosnia and Herzegovina. 64 See Third Opinion on the Slovak Republic with regard to a 20% threshold. 65 Third Opinion on Estonia. 59 18