Allocataire de recherche, Ecole doctorale de droit comparé, Université de Paris I Sorbonne

Seminar Series "Citizenship and National Minorities in Europe", January 2003

St. Antony's College, University of Oxford

DEFINING NATIONAL MINORITIES:

OLD CRITERIA AND NEW MINORITIES

The concept of national minority is traditionally understood in a European context as referring to ethnic groups living in a state, that are linked to a nation that has constituted it's own state, so-called "kin-state". Since the Minority Treaties, the term was also used for the Jewish people and more recently for other groups like the Roma and a variety of autochthonous regional ethnic communities. In a wider context, scholars like W. Kymlicka have defined national minorities in opposition with immigrant ethnic groups as historical communities occupying a given territory or homeland and sharing a distinct language and culture.

This brings me to what I called "old" or traditional criteria of definition. In this presentation I am not focussing on the question of the understanding of the ethnic, linguistic and religious characteristics of a national minority, but on the criteria that tend to limit this notion to the autochthonous groups. Indeed, the law of several European countries define national minorities referring to the historical ties with the state, the link to a traditional area of settlement and the citizenship of the state. In the beginning of the 90's, these conditions have been insistently promoted in view of the adoption of a formal definition within the Council of Europe by countries that feared the claims of new minorities to a similar standard of cultural and political rights.

What are the "new minorities" in Europe? This term has been generally used in order to refer to the minority groups resulting from post World War II immigration. For the purpose of my presentation I would add the idea of a long-term residence, because I am not addressing here the problems of short-term or illegal migration. These "new minorities" are not an homogenous category. Three main categories are to be distinguished: those who posses the citizenship of the State, long-term residents and a special category of residents within Europe who posses the citizenship of another E.U. State[1]. This last category is growing in importance with the EU enlargement[2].

The purpose of this presentation is to show that the political and legal notion of national minority is becoming more comprehensive, progressively expanding to new minorities under the influence of international law. The motor of this evolution seems to be the lack of a formal definition in the new European instruments of protection of minorities, which is leaving a broad margin of appreciation to the monitoring bodies in charge of their implementation, namely the UN Human Rights Committee and especially the Advisory Committee created by the Framework Convention for the protection of National Minorities. The recent jurisprudence related to the implementation of the Convention clearly shows that the absence of a formal definition is likely to profit to new minorities. But we'll see that this process doesn't go without encountering the resistance of certain states, which requires prudence in evaluating it's immediate impact. But it is a steady trend and, as far as the EU countries are concerned, it is baked by the EU integration towards a multinational union, which changes the perception of the status of these new groups.

In the end this will bring me to invite you to reflect together if the present European context doesn't call for reconsidering the moral and political arguments advanced against granting new groups cultural and political rights comparable to those of autochthonous minorities, with the exclusion of course of rights related to land and territorial autonomy. I will not argue for a uniform regime for all these groups, as their different needs call for a variety of legal solutions. I will argue for the legitimacy of a common framework of minimum linguistic and educational rights going beyond the non-discrimination provisions and involving positive State measures which are granted for all European minorities old and new.

I. Defining national minorities in International and European Law

In the course of a quick review of international law, I'll point out that while states could never achieve consensus over a common definition, the monitoring or the executive international bodies generally tended to understand national minorities in the broadest sense.

a) The implementation of article 27 of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights

Within the UN, the adoption of a definition in relation to ethnic, linguistic and religious minorities became necessary with the implementation of Article 27 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the first binding international instrument of protection of minorities after WWII[3]. The famous study of the Special Rapporteur Francesco Capotorti, (1977) proposed a definition that has been even since referred to: a minority is "a group numerically inferior to the rest of the population of a State /�/whose members - being nationals of the State- posses ethnic, religious or linguistic characteristics differing from the rest of the population and who, if only implicitly, maintain a sense of solidarity, directed towards preserving their culture, traditions, religion or language"[4].

It is to be noticed that while he refers to the citizenship condition, no attempt is made at separating old from new minorities through the requirement of a historical presence on the territory. The same can be noticed about later definitions proposed by Special Rapporteurs like Jules Dêchenes in 1985[5] (non-dominant position and sense of solidarity) and Asbjorn Eide, in his famous report in 1993[6].

Also, the UN Human Rights Committee, the body who supervises the application of the Covenant through a system of individual petitions clearly stated in it's General Comment on article 27 (1994) that the individuals protected by it do not need to be citizens or even permanent residents, and may include migrant workers[7]. While welcoming such a broad approach, we should note that the weakness of the rights guaranteed by UN instruments makes it easier to include a maximum of groups, while the Council of Europe or EU instruments grant more substantial rights.

b) Europe

In Europe, given the focus on the old, conflicting Eastern Europe minorities, the term "national minorities" was preferred in the minority protection system of several organisations. The C.S.C.E. (O.S.C.E.) used the term when it created the mandate of the High Commissioner for National Minorities (HCNM). In the absence of a formal definition, the Commissioner preferred a practical approach and became famous with his statement: "I know a (national) minority where I see one"[8]. He therefore addressed minority issues regardless of traditional definition criteria such as citizenship or historical presence on the territory. But we have to keep in mind that his mission regards conflict resolution and not the implementation of a standard of cultural rights[9].

This last task is within the mission of the Council of Europe. At the beginning of the 1990's it became urgent to adopt a European binding instrument of protection of national minorities. Originally, there seemed to be a consensus over the exclusion of the migrant workers through the requirement of the citizenship of the State. In an experts meeting hosted by the Venice Commission in 1992 this choice became clear, after some hesitation concerning the situation of the Baltic States, that had limited the access to citizenship for the Russians immigrated in theses countries after 1940. Instead of opening the legal instrument to long-term residents, it was preferred to condition the access of these countries to the Council of Europe on amending the laws on citizenship.

The first resulting important document was Recommendation 1201 of the Parliamentary Assembly containing a draft of an Additional Protocol on the Rights of National Minorities to the ECHR (1st of February 1993). Article 1 provides a definition that has become a dear reference to certain states because it contained not only the citizenship condition, but also the requirement of "longstanding, firm and lasting ties with the state"[10]. The particular wording of this criterion of definition was especially aimed at excluding those members of new minorities that had acquired the citizenship of the state. The same approach was adopted by the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages adopted in November 1992 where "regional or minority languages" are defined as those "traditionally used within a given territory of a State" with the express exclusion of the "languages of migrants"[11]. It is to be noticed that the term "languages of migrants" was also meant to refer to the languages spoken by second-generation individuals, born in Western countries and, for a part of them, citizens of these States. Their qualification as "migrants" is therefore particularly unfit.

For several political reasons, Recommendation 1201 was rejected by the Heads of States and Government meeting at its Vienna Summit of the Council of Europe in October 1993, where the preference for a framework convention was expressed. The Framework Convention, adopted in November 1994, is the result of a compromise and the text can be considered week in comparison with the previous Recommendation. It contains no definition of national minorities and it's provisions on the cultural and political rights of the minority members are general, leaving the States a substantial margin of appreciation. But at the same time, this general wording was also likely to leave a margin of appreciation to the monitoring bodies. Indeed, it soon became clear that the success of the Convention depended on the monitoring mechanism, consisting in resolutions taken by the Committee of Ministers with a majority of two thirds[12] on the basis of the opinions of an expert Advisory Committee (starting it's activity in 1998). The apparent weakness of the Convention didn't allow at the beginning to foresee the audacity of these opinions, which are quite embarrassing not only for "bad pupils" from the East, but also for Western countries supposed models of democracy. These recent opinions already form a coherent body and are close to the legal standards of a genuine jurisprudence. I'll focus on some recent examples that are very telling.

II. State definitions and the jurisprudence of the Advisory Committee of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities

In order to understand them, it has to be said that some states understood the lack of a definition in the Convention as a possibility to stick to their internal restrictive concept of national minorities, which they did through special declarations at the time of the signature or the ratification[13]. They either offered a definition or listed the groups concerned. For example, Austria referred to the 1976 Law on ethnic groups, which are defined as "Austrian citizens of a different ethnic culture, speaking a specific maternal language and who are traditionally living in certain areas". Estonia cited its Law on the cultural autonomy of national minorities that also refers to the Estonian citizenship and the "longstanding, firm and lasting ties" with the territory. Other countries such as Germany or Denmark directly named the groups without a definition, but implicitly reflecting the same restrictive concept of national minorities as  old, autochthonous minorities. Germany named the Danes of German citizenship, the Sorbian people, and ethnic groups of German citizenship traditionally resident in Germany such as the Friesians and the Roma and Sinti. Denmark only named the German minority in South Jutland. These are only some examples[14].

Then how was it possible for the Advisory Committee to challenge these definitions? The Committee found a support for it's broad interpretation of the term national minority in examining the implementation of article 3, relating to the right to choose to be treated or not as a member of a national minority. Although the text of the article hardly allows the monitoring body to go as far, it was taken as a legal basis for the examination of the state definition of a national minority. While recognising the margin of appreciation of the States in defining minorities, the Advisory Committee issued a wide interpretation, typical of the jurisprudence of an "active" judge. I would like to quote a fragment of its standard formula. "The Advisory Committee notes that /�/ this margin of appreciation must be exercised in accordance with general principles of international law. In particular, it stresses that the implementation of the Framework Convention should not be a source of arbitrary or unjustified distinctions. For this reason the Advisory Committee considers that it is part of its duty to examine the personal scope given to the implementation of the Framework Convention in order to ensure that no arbitrary or unjustified distinctions have been made"[15].

            So this concept of "arbitrary or unjustified distinctions" allows the Committee to go beyond the states definitions and examine the situation of other minority groups. For example, in it's opinion on Austria in May 2002, the Committee noted "the existence of other groups, including non-citizens" that the Austrian Government explicitly refused to consider to be covered by the Convention, "namely because they have not inhabited the country for sufficient time" and particularly notes that "one such group is the Polish community, some representatives of which expressed interest in the possibility of protection under the Law on Ethnic Groups" (§ 19). Therefore the Austrian authorities are invited "to continue to examine this issue in consultation with the representatives of the Polish community" (§ 20).

            Germany faced an even more evident disagreement with its restrictive approach. In it's opinion on Germany of March 2002, the Committee didn't hesitate to refer to the large number of groups of non-citizens living in Germany, the Government itself having indicated 7.49 million foreigners living in Germany (§ 17). In particular, the Committee quotes the official statistics at the end of 1999, it referred to the presence of 1,856,000 citizens from EU States, more then 2,053,000 Turkish citizens, 737,000 Yugoslav citizens, 214 000 Croats and 291,000 Polish citizens (note 3 under § 17).

            In addition, the question of limiting the special rights to the specific autochthonous settlement areas was also tackled in several opinions, in order to ensure that minorities are still considered as such when they live outside these areas, namely in the capital. For example, such a remark concerned the recognition by Austria of Croats of Burgenland, traditionally settled in this area but not also those living in Vienna (Opinion on Austria, 16.05.2002, § 16). Also, many opinions and recommendations refer to the Roma minority without distinguishing between old and more recent communities[16].

            The Advisory Committee opinions have been generally endorsed by the Committee of Ministers Resolutions that as a rule "recommends to take appropriate account of the Advisory Committee's various comments"[17]. These certainly belong to soft law, as non-binding decisions, but soft law is becoming more and more persuasive in the context of a closer European integration. The reaction of the countries differed according to their political weight in the Council of Europe, but even heavy actors like Germany are likely to take some measures in the future, even without a formal recognition of these minorities. On the other side, there are elements likely to weaken the monitoring system as the absence of countries like France, where the ratification of the Convention failed due to the Conseil Constitutionnel decision in 1999 ("Statut de la Corse")[18], although this isolated position is more and more difficult to defend.

            Given this context, it's worth pointing out the pragmatic and cautious approach of the Committee, that doesn't expect these countries to fully implement the Convention to the new minorities, but invites the states to consider it on "an article-by-article basis" and "in consultation with those concerned", sometimes even adding "at some appropriate time in the future". It's important to stress that the Advisory Committee is not proposing a uniform regime for all these groups, which actually have different cultural and political claims; this is why the consultation with those concerned is encouraged. Also, the Committee positively notices when measures have been adopted despite the lack of official recognition. For example, in the Opinion on Denmark, while inviting the Danish Government to consider the inclusion of new minorities, it notes that "measures have been introduced in Danish legislation from which these persons may benefit, such as the possibility to have extra-curricular teaching of the non-Danish mother tongue within the public school system" (§ 24).

            III. Reconsidering the arguments in favour of a distinction between new and autochthonous minorities in a European context

In my last section I would like to discuss some arguments in favour or against such an evolution towards the recognition of new minorities as entitled to the same minimum legal protection as the traditional national minorities.

Interesting moral arguments have been advanced in political theory on the subject. In his widely know "Multicultural citizenship", Kymlicka insists upon the distinction between national minorities -as autochthonous groups- and immigrant ethnic minorities, in arguing that assimilation was imposed upon the first but the latter have chosen to adopt a new language and culture[19]. The argument of the choice of immigrants to assimilate into another culture was advanced by leading political theorists and sociologists like Michael Walzer or Nathan Glazer[20]. But their views have been formed in relation to countries built primarily on immigration like the U.S., Canada or Australia. Also, we have to point out that Kimlicka considers the national minorities through the right to self-determination and territorial autonomy. But this controversial right is at the end of a difficult road of ensuring primarily cultural rights, which are suitable for new groups as well. Not to mention the fact that this focus on territorial autonomy neglects the form of personal cultural autonomy that is conceived for the self-government needs of dispersed groups (to give an example, such a system is organised by the Hungarian law and responds to the needs of minority groups living in the capital and the cities[21]). There are many interesting comments to make in political theory but I'll have to limit my point here to the European present context. I'll make some remarks regarding the Council of Europe and the EU.

In the Council of Europe the reasons for the original restrictive approach regarding autochthonous minorities was the attention given to the situation of minorities in Eastern Europe and the concerns for security and stability. Some scholars[22] pointed out that both the benefits of the Framework Convention and the mandate of the OSCE High Commissioner are limited to national minorities, in the sense of national groups linked to a kin-state that are a potential source of conflict. Also, it seems that only security concerns could justify the double standard of the Copenhagen EU criteria for enlargement requiring from new members the protection of minorities while no such standard was set for E.U. members or former enlargements.

But as we look at the present situation in Europe and in the world, the argument of the security motivated minority protection might be turned in favour of the new minorities, namely some ill-integrated  Muslim groups. The security context is certainly different, but it is worth reconsidering their situation and namely if the public policies fighting segregation and engagement in extremist activities shouldn't include a cultural recognition in addition to an economic and social improvement of their situation. In any case, if the stability argument might originally have been at the root of the initiatives within the Council of Europe or the CSCE, the goal of minority protection is much wider. Minority rights are supposed to be in themselves important as part of human rights in a democratic society, which is proclaimed by all European documents on the issue.

Another argument questioning the focus on Eastern Europe is that now most of Eastern European countries have adopted a substantial legal framework of cultural and political rights for the members of their minorities. I am not addressing here the practical problems, I would just stress the fact that this legal framework went beyond problems of conflict and autonomy and addressed the needs of non-conflicting minorities and not necessarily autochthonous. Indeed, present minority questions in Eastern Europe have to be analysed taking into account the demographics and the internal migration of the so-called "autochthonous minorities". Ironically, it is exactly in Eastern Europe that the minority protection system is no longer conditioned upon the link to a traditional area, while Austria, Germany or Denmark laws still limit the protection to special areas despite the modern migration of those groups. To take an example: a large part of the Hungarian minority in Romania, whose traditional area of settlement is Transylvania, live in Bucharest and dispose there of the same rights regarding maternal language, education and Parliament representation. But then one could ask: in the wider European Union why do the Hungarians in Bucharest benefit from this status, while for example the Polish community in Berlin, partly born in Germany, does not enjoy any of those rights.

This brings me to the specific situation of the European Union.  EU law regarding the protection of minorities is notoriously poor[23]. Article 128 of the Maastricht Treaty first mentions the support for "the cultures of the member-states, while respecting their national and regional diversity". Since then, EU institutions addressed some minority issues but only in relation to the regional diversity, so, again, the autochthonous communities. The language and culture of new minorities have been practically neglected, although a distinction should be made here between immigrants from member states and third country nationals (TCN). In respect to the first category, the 1977 directive on the education of children of migrant workers was meant to promote the teaching of their mother tongue and culture of origin, but this directive has proved to be one of the most poorly enforced Acts of Community Law[24]. The absence of cultural rights of residents coming from EU member-states is in obvious contrast with the commitment to "unity in diversity". If some progress is to be expected in the future, it is interesting to think at the situation where the ethnic origin doesn't correspond to the country of origin. For example, will a Hungarian from Slovakia living in Frankfurt be allowed to have education in his/her mother tongue or at least learn it in school? Of course, a certain demographic concentration is need in order to organise language teaching and other cultural rights: internal law sometimes uses a figure like 10 to 20 %[25], the Framework Convention uses the expression "substantial numbers" (article 11 and 14). Several possibilities exist once the principle is adopted. Also, let us think about the rights of a EU citizen who's culture of origin is from a third country, which is a very delicate matter given the importance of immigrant communities, partially naturalised, in several European cities. This requires to reflect upon who are "the peoples of Europe", keeping in mind that the European Charter of Fundamental Rights now refers to the respect for "the traditions and cultures of the peoples of Europe"[26].

This question brings us in the end to the situation of third country nationals (TCN), and I'll refer here to the emerging EU category of "long term resident TCN"[27]. The first step here is of course their political recognition through a redefinition of the EU citizenship. In respect to their minority status, there is an opposition between the model that favours assimilation through the improvement social policies, as this successfully occurred in the past with other groups (France), and the fact that cultural assimilation is becoming problematic in today global world of emerging trans-national communities. In my view the best solution is to organise a system which leaves them the possibility of a choice, most importantly, leaves them the choice of a multiple cultural identity, matching both the culture of the country of origin and the country of immigration. This issue joins the debate over the acceptance of a multiple citizenship that encounters so many difficulties in certain state policies on naturalisation (Germany).

I'll end by noticing an interesting opening towards a larger definition of minorities in Europe, that is to expect from article 22 of the new European Charter of Fundamental Rights: "The Union respects the cultural, religious and linguistic diversity", a similar wording is also proposed in drafting article 1 of the European Constitution[28]. This general wording that avoids any reference to citizenship or regional autochthonous minorities is likely to leave a considerable margin of appreciation to the European Court of Justice. Thus, the EU bodies might join the Council of Europe in promoting a broader approach to minority rights and possibly, in the future, in renouncing the majority/minority dichotomy in favour of a redefinition of the peoples of Europe.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] As far as the E.U. is concerned, resident non-citizens in a state are divided into E.U. citizens and third country nationals. Long-term residents who are third country nationals have become a legal category in European Community law with the European Council Resolution on the Status of Third-Country Nationals who Reside on a Long-Term Basis in the territory of the Member States (1996) and Chapter VIII (article 30) of the Amsterdam Treaty.

[2] In my presentation I won't consider the Roma as a new minority, because it requires a special analysis as an old, discriminated minority and because it has been already recognized by most European States in which they have been settled for a long time. But of course, the Roma can be considered a new minority as far as their recent immigration in Western Countries.

[3] Article 27: "In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess their own religion or to use their own language".

[4] Francesco CAPOTORTI, Étude des droits des personnes appartenant aux minorités ethniques, religieuses et linguistiques, Doc. E/CN. 4/Sub. 2/1979/384, Publications des Nations Unies, Genève, 1979, 119p.

[5] Jules DESCHENES, Proposition de définition de la notion de minorité, Doc. E/CN. 4/Sub. 2/1985/31, 14.05.1985. He insists on the non-dominant position of the minority group and the sense of solidarity.

[6] Asbjorn Eide simply defines a minority as a "group of persons in a sovereign State, representing less then a half of the population of this state, whose members have in common ethnic, religious, linguistic characteristics that distinguish them from the rest of the population": Asbjorn EIDE, Moyens possibles de faciliter la solution par des voies pacifiques et constructives des problèmes dans lesquelles des minorités sont impliquées, U.N., Doc. E/CN. 4/Sub. 2/1993/34

[7] Human Rights Committee general comment on article 27: "In this regard, the obligations deriving from article 2 (1) are also relevant, since a State party is required to ensure that the rights protected under the Covenant are available to all individuals within it's territory and subject to it's jurisdiction, except rights which are expressly made to apply to citizens, for example, political rights under article 25. A State party may not, therefore, restrict the rights under article 27 to it's citizens alone". For comments see Zelim SKURBATY (2000), As If People Mattered. Critical Appraisal of Peoples and Minorities from an International Human Rights Perspective and Beyond, Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague,  p. 294

[8] The High Commissioner Max van der Stoel has repeated this statement on several occasions. For example, see M. Van der Stoel, "Prevention of Minority Conflicts", in L. B. Sohn (1993), The CSCE and the Turbulent New Europe, p. 148

[9] The HCNM has acted with regard to a variety of groups, including non-citizens (for example, the Russians from Estonia and Latvia). John Parker, for several years the legal adviser of the HCNM, concludes that "in the absence of any expressed objections, it would appear that citizenship is not a requirement for membership of a national minority in the meaning of OSCE", John Parker (1999), 'Problems in Defining Minorities', in D. Fottrell, B. Bowring (ed.), Minority and Group Rights in the New Millenium, M. Nijhoff, The Hague, 1999, p. 238

[10] Article 1 states that "The expression ��national minority'' refers to a group of persons in a state who :

a.                  reside on the territory of that state and are citizens thereof ;

b.                  maintain longstanding, firm and lasting ties with that state ;

c.                  display distinctive ethnic, cultural, religious or linguistic characteristics ;

d.                  are sufficiently representative, although smaller in number than the rest of the population of that state or of a region of that state ;

e.                  are motivated by a concern to preserve together that which constitutes their common identity, including their culture, their traditions, their religion or their language."

[11] Article 1 of the Charter defines "regional or minority languages" as "traditionally used within a given territory of a State by nationals of that State who form a group numerically smaller than the rest of the State's population and different from the official language(s) of that State"; "it does not include either dialects of the official language(s) of the State or the languages of migrants".

[12] The rule is more complex and consists in the vote of two thirds of the Contracting Parties including a majority of representatives of Parties entitled to sit on the Committee of Ministers, Resolution (97) 10 of 17 September 1997.

[13] The list of the declarations are published on www.coe.int/T/E/human_rights/minorities, the official site of the Secretariat of the Framework Convention.

[14]  Sweden named the Saami, the Swedish, the Tornedalers, the Roma and the Jews. Poland referred to the citizenship condition. All declarations as long as the other documents relating to the implementation of the Framework Convention are to be found on www.coe.int/T/E/human_rights/minorities/

[15] This standard formula is found in every opinion of the Advisory Committee, at the stage of examining the implementation of article 3.  All the Committee's opinions are on www.coe.int/T/E/human_rights/minorities

[16] For example, in the Opinion on Denmark (22.09.2000), § 22: "Furthermore, the Advisory Committee considers that, given the historic presence of Roma in Denmark, persons belonging to the Roma community cannot a priori be excluded from the personal scope of application of the Framework Convention".

[17] The Resolutions of the Committee of Ministers with regard to each country, taken on the basis of the Advisory Committee opinion, are all published on www.coe.int/T/E/human_rights/minorities

[18] C.C., no. 91-290 DC, 9.05.1991, Loi portant statut de la collectivité territoriale de Corse, Rec. p. 50

[19] Will KIMLICKA (1995), Multicultural Citizenship: a Liberal Theory of Minority Rights, Oxford University Press, p. 61

[20] Nathan Glazer argues that immigrants have not come to the US "to maintain a foreign language and culture, but with the intention to become Americanized as fast as possible", Nathan GLAZER (1983), Ethnic Dilemmas: 1964-1982, Harvard University Press, p. 149. A similar position was defended by Michel WALZER (1982), 'Pluralism in Political Perspective', in M. Walzer (ed.), The Politics of Ethnicity, Harvard University Press, p. 6.

[21] Act LXXVII of 1993 on the Rights of National and Ethnic Minorities, in English on the website of the Hungarian  Office for National and Ethnic Minorities, www.meh.hu/nekh

[22] Certain scholars still continue to address the minority protection issue in Europe through the needs of this area. For example, in a substantial recent study, Miriam Aukerman points out the analogy between Eastern Europe's minorities and indigenous peoples, while assuming that immigrant groups are in a different situation, Miriam AUKERMAN (2000), 'Definitions and Justifications: Minority and Indigenous Rights in a Central/East European Context', Human Rights Quarterly, 22 (4), p. 1011-1050 .

[23] Article 128 (1) of the Maastricht Treaty states that "the Community shall contribute to the flowering of the cultures of the member-states, while respecting their national and regional diversity".

[24] DE WITTE Bruno (1993), "The European Community and its Minorities", in Catherine Brölmann (ed.), Peoples and Minorities in International Law, M. Nijhoff, The Hague, p. 182. In cases where mother tongue education was provided, it was on an optional basis and often outside regular school hours. The Commission has declined to use the enforcement action (article 169) against the states.

[25] For example, the Romanian law on local public administration (no. 215/2001) refers to the situation where a minority forms 20 % of  the population in a territorial unit.

[26] The preamble of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights refers to the "respect of the diversity of the cultures and traditions of the peoples of  Europe".

[27] Chapter VIII, article 30 of the Treaty of Amsterdam provides that long-term residence status should be granted to those third country nationals who have lived legally in a member-state for 10 years and  have the right of residence for another five years. Certain social rights and the right of the free-movement are linked to this status. Also see the Commission's Proposal for a Council Directive Concerning the Status of Third Country Nationals who are Long-term Residents, COM (2001) 127, 13 March 2001, www.europa.eu.int/eur-lex/

[28] See the Draft Constitutional Treaty of the Praesidium of the Convention, which refers in article 1 to the respect for the diversity of Europe, Brussels , 28.10.2002, www.european-convention.eu.int