A/50/514 English Page 19 (c) In areas not covered by the special provisions, the Convention organs have concluded a contrario that no right to the use of a particular language is guaranteed by the Convention to citizens in their contacts with the authorities for administrative proceedings in general, concerning the use of language in municipal councils and social service assistance centres, and concerning the language used for the registration of a minority party wishing to take part in elections; (d) In a case concerning alleged discrimination of Lapps as a minority in Norway, the Commission again confirmed that the Convention does not guarantee specific rights to minorities. It observed that the applicants had the right to vote and stand for elections to the Norwegian Parliament but stressed that Lapps have no secured representation for themselves. In further cases concerning Lapps in Norway, the Commission recognized that a particular life-style of a minority is protected by article 8 as being "private life", "family life" or "home". The issue in this case was whether the construction of a hydroelectric power station interfered with the lives of fishermen and reindeer breeders. The Commission rejected the applicants’ complaints under article 14 as there was no indication that they were treated in a manner which could be considered discrimination, nor had they been forced to abandon their life-styles. The same principle was subsequently repeatedly confirmed in cases concerning caravan sites for Gypsies. In most cases, the contested measures were found to be in conformity with the provision of article 8, paragraph 2. However, a breach of the Convention was for the first time established by the Commission in its report of 11 January 1995 on a case involving the United Kingdom which has recently been referred to the Court; (e) The Commission also considered cases where a cultural identity is derived from the fact that the applicant belongs to a particular religious group. The Commission approached these on a case-by-case basis in respect of article 9, paragraph 2. An important distinction which is being made in this respect is whether a particular practice is an essential part of the manifestation of religion. Not every act influenced by a religion or belief is recognized as a "practice" within the meaning of article 9 and, accordingly, the protection of article 14 cannot be invoked. In a case in which the applicant had sought to bring criminal charges in the United Kingdom against the author and publisher of The Satanic Verses, the Court ruled that there was no protection of Muslims against blasphemy against their religion by a publication and that articles 9 and 14 were inapplicable. However, religious discrimination contrary to article 14 can be invoked where another Convention right is at issue. In another case involving Austria, the Court considered it as discriminatory, invoking article 14 in conjunction with article 8, in a child custody case to make a distinction between the parents on the ground of their religion, i.e the possible effects on the social life of the children concerned of their being associated with a particular religious minority (in this case, Jehovah’s Witnesses). The Commission considered that it is incompatible with the concept of a pluralist society to assume that members of a minority group will automatically be socially marginalized; (f) With regard to religious education, the Court in several cases determined that States are required to provide for exemptions for children who do not belong to the majority religion. The system of regulating access to /...