Latvia: language legislation developments

From: MINELRES moderator <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 1998 17:26:56 +0200 (EET)
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
Subject: Latvia: language legislation developments

From: MINELRES moderator <[email protected]> 

Latvia: language legislation developments


Some MINELRES subscribers asked me about the new developments with the
Latvia's language legislation. Hope the topic is of interest to other
subscribers too. Indeed, this issue overshadowed by the street rallies
and Russia's campaign, is in fact most serious. Of course, any
questions and comments are welcome.

1. Background

The first legal act in the field was the Latvian Supreme Soviet
resolution of 6 October 1988, giving Latvian official status as "the
state language" in the Latvian Soviet republic. The Law on the
Languages of the Republic of Latvia was adopted on 5 May 1989. Latvian
was declared the sole state language, all official business had to be
conducted in Latvian. However, the 1989 law also contained
certain guarantees for the use of Russian. The language law was to
take effect in three years. Yet, two months before its entry into
force, the parliament passed a number of significant amendments to it
which changed its very essence. All but one clauses where Russian was
nentioned were removed. The adoption of the Language law was followed
by a number of governmental regulations which determined usage of
languages, as well as established punishments for violations of the
Language law.

In particular, the law established that all employees in state and
private institutions, enterprises and organizations had to know and
to use of "the state language, as well as other languages, to the
extent required by their professional duties". About 350,000 persons
passed the state language attestation since 1992. Several
institutions to deal with the implementation of the law (The State
Language Center, The State Language Inspectorate, attestation
commissions).

2. New language legislation

In summer 1995, several MPs from the nationalistic factions asked the
State Language Center to prepare a new draft language law, for, in
their view, "the law adopted in Soviet time was obsolete". The draft
was submitted to the Saeima (parliament) by the Cabinet of Ministers.
After several considerations in parliament, amendments and changes,
the draft was adopted by the Saeima in the first reading in June 1997.

The draft was criticized as contradicting to European human rights
instruments. "The draft Latvian State Language Law proposes a regime
of regulation which in large measure contradicts internationally
protected fundamental human rights, in particular with regard to
freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom
of religion, the right to privacy, freedom from discrimination, and
the rights of persons belonging to minorities" - this is a quotation
from the official opinion forwarded to the Latvian authorities in
September 1997 by the Council of Europe and the OSCE experts.

Nevertheless, the draft was submitted to the second reading with only
minor amendments. The parliamentary commission on human rights
suggested to forward the amended version of the draft to the CoE and
CBSS for the new evaluation but this proposal was rejected by the
responsible Commission on Education, Culture and Science. The bill was
to be considered by the Saeima on March 13, 1998. Yet, on the eve of
that day it was suddenly excluded from the session's agenda. Latvian
media reported that the USA ambassador to Latvia met leaders of some
ruling factions and urged them to postpone the consideration of the
bill till the new opinion of the European organizations is received.
Nationalistic faction "For Fatherland and Freedom" accused the USA in
"interfering into Latvia's internal
affairs". 2 April, 1998 is the new officially appointed date for the
second reading.

3. Brief overview of the basic provisions of the draft

I will mention only those provisions of the draft submitted for the
second reading which cause controversies. I don't have the English
text at my disposal, sorry for the loose translation. Comments after
quotations reflect my personal views.

Art.1 para.2: "The law does not regulate usage of languages in
non-official communications of the residents of Latvia, in religious
organizations, as well as in internal communications of national and
ethnic groups". It is not clear to me how the latter notion is
juridically defined.

Art.4: "All other languages used in the Republic of Latvia, except for
the Liv language, should be considered foreign languages in
understanding of this law". I believe this means clear denial of any
minority language rights.

Art.6 "Para.1: In the state and municipal institutions, ....
enterprises and organizations, the working language of sessions and
other working meeting is the state language. Para 2: If a foreign
language is used in the meeting mentioned in para 1., the organizer
must provide translation to the state language". Para.3 sets an
exception for "events organized by ethnic groups, educational
institutions implementing minority education programs", and minority
media - in these cases translation must be provided only if at least
one of the participants demands this.

The clause permits state's intervention into the private sphere. It is
highly doubtful if the language inspector has the right to be present
at all working meetings in private (eg family) enterprises, NGOs etc.

Art.8 "Para.1: The state and municipal institutions, .... enterprises
and organizations may accept from residents and consider documents
only in the state language, as well as in foreign languages if they
were issued in the territory of the Republic of Latvia before this
law's entry into force. Para 2: Other documents in foreign languages
must be supplied with the translation into the state language approved
by a notary" (In the version adopted in the first reading, the date
was May 5, 1992). 

This means, in particular, that I as a member of the city council
cannot consider a complaint from a Riga resident unless it is written
in the state language; a HR NGO can't accept an application from eg a
refugee claimant (or must first translate it and pay for notarial
approval), etc.

Art.9 para.1: "The state language must be used in official public
events. If a foreign language is used the organizer must provide
translation to the state language"." (Para.2 and 3 set exceptions for
international events - the state language must be one of the working
languages, as well as for "events of the ethnic groups and religious
organizations, pickets and demonstrations). The current legislation of
Latvia doesn't contain definition of "an official public
event".

Art.12, 13, and 14 dealing with the language in education system, are
difficult to interpret:

Art.12. para 2: "According to the minority education programs,
representatives of minorities has the right to receive general
education, besides the state language, also in a mothertongue. The
amount of the state language in these programs is determined by the
Ministry of Education and Science".

Art.13. para 1: "In general primary and secondary, as well as
professional and tertiary educational institutions, the language of
instruction is the state language, unless this law or other laws
establish other language of instruction". Para 2: "In general
secondary educational institutions with other language of instruction
at least half of the courses must be taught in the state language".
Para.3: "State-funded vocational education is conducted in the state
language...".

The crucial point is how the statement "...established by other laws"
should be understood. It seems that a special law permitting usage of
a certain language as a language of instruction in a particular
educational institution is implied. Latvian legislation contains a
precedent - a special law on the Swedish Economy School in Riga which
established English as the language of instruction. However, it is
highly doubtful that similar laws will be adopted about all numerous
minority schools working now in Latvia (over 30 per cent of students
are educated in Russian and about 1 per cent - in Polish, Lithuanian,
Ukrainian and other languages). If some bureaucratic procedure how the
minority school can be officially certified is meant, the wording
should be different.

Art.15 and 16 determine language of TV and radio broadcasts ("State
and regional" broadcasts must be in the state language, except for
"broadcasts addressed to minorities"; private companies must obey the
language proportions established by the Radio and Television Law (not
more than 30 per cent of broadcasts in languages other than the state
one). Thus, it is not allowed to establish "a minority TV-channel" or
radio-station.

Art.20: "Personal names must be used in accordance with the Latvian
language grammar and traditions", determined by the "special
Regulations adopted by the Cabinet of Ministers". It should be
mentioned that, as a result, minority names and surnames (not only of
Slavic origin) are seriously distorted, because Latvian spelling is
rather demanding (special endings must be added etc).

Art.22: "Open announcements, ... placards, ...as well as other public
information must be in the state language... Cases when besides the
state language, also foreign language can be used, are determined by
the Regulations adopted by the Cabinet of Ministers". Corresponding
rules currently in force stipulate 5 cases of the kind: information
related to safety and security issues; related to events of the ethnic
culture associations; international conferences, seminars etc.;
information of the companies dealing with tourism (if the special
permission is received from the State Langauge center); and
information related to taxation.

Finally, Art.29 para 3. is worth paying attention - it stipulates that
20 per cent of the fines for violation of the language legislation
remain at the disposal of the State Language Center. Some commentators
claim this is the clue to all provisions mentioned above :-(.

4. Other developments

Some more things should be mentioned to cover the language policies
developments in Latvia.

The Latvian electoral law states that only citizens of Latvia who have
a command of the state language at the highest level may be registered
as candidates for the Saeima and for municipalities. Unlike in
Estonia, candidates who have received their education in a non-Latvian
language must present a certificate of their language proficiency when
register. In the 1997 municipal elections, one candidate from the "For
Equal Rights" list (former director of the closed Russian-language
school in Riga) was removed from the list by the Riga Electoral
Commission on the basis of the language inspector's conclusion that
her real command in the state language did not correspond to the
highest level, despite she had a valid
language attestation certificate. The courts of all levels ruled that
the decision was in compliance with the Latvian legislation. I heard
that this person's individual complaint has been submitted under the
Optional Protocol to the ICCPR. 

According to the regulations adopted by the Cabinet of Ministers in
October 1996, everybody who has lost a job must present a language
proficiency certificate to be registered as unemployed, even if his
former job did not require language proficiency (eg common worker). Of
course, no unemployment benefits are available to these persons.
Despite several appeals on the part of international organizations,
Latvian National HR Office, oppositional MPs and the Saeima HR
Commission, these regulations remain in force. Some commentators claim
that this is the main cause why the official unemployment rate
decreased since late 1996.

In February 1998, the Saeima adopted amendments to the Labor Code
which granted the state language inspectors the right to demand
dismissal of am employee who's state language command doesn't meet the
specified requirements, regardless of whether he/she has the language
attestation certificate. If an employer doesn't agree to fire this
employee, the state language inspector has the right to submit this
demand to the court. After heated debates (and probably some external
pressure) the State President G.Ulmanis refused to endorse the
amendments, and currently they are being re-considered in the Saeima's
commissions. Most probable forecast is that first the state language
inspector will be commissioned to demand a repeated language
attestation, and if the language proficiency doesn't improve till the
necessary level within 6 months, the employee will have to be fired.

5. Conclusions.

It seems that nationalistic parties in the Saeima do their best to
tighten the language legislation before the coming parliamentary
elections (October 1998). Demonstration of patriotism and adherence to
the ethnic values is a good trump in the pre-election campaign.
Besides, nobody can be sure about how the next parliament will look... 

Boris

-- 
==============================================================
MINELRES - a forum for discussion on minorities in Central&Eastern
Europe

Submissions: [email protected]  
Subscription/inquiries: [email protected] 
List archive: http://www.riga.lv/minelres/archive.htm
==============================================================