Review of the Monitoring Process of the Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities

In: European Yearbook of Minority Issues Online
View More View Less
  • 1 Professor Dr.; Director, Walther-Schücking-Institute for International Law, University of Kiel, Germany; President of the Advisory Committee under the Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. The following views, however, are solely those of the author.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 1 For a review of the pertinent developments in previous years, see Rainer Hofmann, `Review of the lonitor- ing Process of the Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities', 1 EYMI (2001/2), 435-60. 2 These were: Albania (entry into force on 1 January 2000), Armenia (1 November 1998), Austria (1 July 1998), Azerbaijan (1 October 2000), Bosnia and Herzegovina (1 June 2000), Bulgaria (1 September 1999), Croatia (1 February 1998), Cyprus (1 February 1998), Czech Republic (1 April 1998), Denmark (1 February 1998), Estonia (1 February 1998), Finland (1 Februarv 1998), Germany (1 February 1998), Hungary (1 February 1998), Ireland (1 September 1999), Italy (1 March 1998), Liechtenstein (1 March 1998), Lithuania (1 July 2000), Macedonia (1 February 1998), Malta (1 June 1998), Moldova (1 February 1998), Norway (1 July 1999), Poland (1 April 2001), Romania (1 February 1998), Russian Federation (1 December 1998), San Marino

  • (1 February 1998), Slovakia (1 February 1998), Slovenia (1 July 1998), Spain (1 February 1998), Sweden (1 August 2000), Switzerland (1 February 1999), Ukraine (1 May 1998), and United Kingdom (1 May 1998). 3 Then - then - Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (1 September 2001). 4 Entry into force on 1 September 2002. 5 These were Belgium (signature on 31 July 2001), Georgia (22 September 2000), Greece (22 September 1997), Iceland (1 February 1995), Latvia (11 May 1995) and the Netherlands (1 February 1995). 6 These were Andorra, France, and Turkey. 7 On this document see Matthias Weckerling, 'Der Durchfiihrungsmechanismus des Rahmenubereinkom- mens des Europarates zum Schutz nationaler Minderheiten', 24 EuGRZ (1997), 605-8; and Rainer Hof mann,'Review of the Monitoring Process ...',at437. 8 Thus, the Advisory Committee was composed, on 1 January 2003, of the following persons: Gaspar Biro (Hungarian, Second Vice-President), Mihai Cernenco (Moldovan), Anastasia Crickley (Irish), Asbjern Eide (Norwegian), Tonio Ellul (Maltese), Zdzislaw Galicki (Polish), Dimitar Gelev (Macedonian), Ferenc Hajos (Slovenian), Rainer Hofmann (German, President), Giorgio Malinverni (Swiss), Vsevolod Mitsik (Ukrainian), Iulia Motoc (Romanian), Sara Nunez de Prado y Clavel (Spanish), Vladas Sirutavicius (Lithu- anian), Eva Smith Asmussen (Danish), Athanasia Spiliopoulou Akermark (Swedish, First Vice-President), and Ahmed Zilic (Bosnian and Herzegovinian). 9 See Rainer Hofmann,'Review of the Monitoring Process... ',438-47.

  • 10 In 2002, the following three state reports were received: Azerbaijan - ACFC/SR (02)1; Poland - ACFC/SR (02)2; and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia - ACFC/SR (02)3. In the preceding years, state reports from the following 28 states were received: In 1999, San Marino. Cyprus, Finland, Liechtenstein, Croatia, Czech Republic, Italy, Slovakia, Denmark, Hungary, Romania, United Kingdom, Malta, Ukraine, and Estonia; in 2000, Germany Russian Federation, Moldova, Austria, Slovenia, and Spain; in 2001, Norway, Switzer- land, Sweden, Armenia, Albania, Lithuania, and Ireland. The full text of these reports is available at http: II Iwww.coe.intltlelhuman_rightslminorities. 11 In order to perform its monitoring activities as speedily as possible, the Advisory Committee decided, at the beginning of its work, to establish country-specific working groups which are primarily responsible for establishing the necessary contacts with governments and other actors in a given country and for drafting the text of an opinion on a specific state; on this issue see Rainer Hofmann, 'Review of the Monitoring Process ...',440. 12 In 2002, such visits were conducted to the following states parties (in chronological order): Slovenia, Rus- sian Federation, Norway, Albania, Switzerland, Lithuania, and Sweden.

  • 13 In 2002, the Advisory Committee adopted eight opinions on the following state reports: on 1 March 2002, on Germany, Moldova, and Ukraine; on 16 May 2002, on Armenia and Austria; and on 12 September 2002, on Norway, the Russian Federation, and Slovenia. This means that, as of 1 January 2003, the Advisory Com- mittee had altogether adopted 22 opinions (in 2000, it adopted opinions on Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Liechtenstein, Malta, San Marino, and Slovakia; and in 2001 on Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Italy, Romania, and the United Kingdom. 14 As of 1 January 2003, the following state reports were delayed more than 15 months: Bosnia and Herze- govina (report had been due on 1 June 2001), Bulgaria (1 September 2000), and Macedonia (1 February 1999). In addition thereto, reports from the following states parties had been received with a delay exceeding 15 months: Armenia (report due on 1 November 1999, received on 11 June 2001), Austria (due on 1 July 1999, received on 15 November 2000), Azerbaijan (due on 1 October 2000, received on 4 June 2002), Moldova (due on 1 February 1999, received on 29 June 2000), Slovenia (due on 1 July 1999, received on 29 November 2000), Spain (due on 1 February 1999, received on 19 December 2000), and Switzerland (due on 1 February 2000, received on 16 May 2001).

  • 15 On this issue, see Rainer Hofmann, 'Review of the Monitoring Process ...', at 459. 16 It might be added that also the governments of Albania and Norway decided, on 18 and 13 February 2003 respectively, to make public the pertinent opinions of the Advisory Committee, together with the respective government's comments.

  • 17 In 2001, this approach was taken by Denmark, Malta, and San Marino. 18 But see supra note 16. 19 It should be mentioned, however, that the Committee of Ministers adopted its pertinent conclusions and recommendations on 15 January 2003 by which the opinion of the Advisory Committee which had been adopted on 16 May 2002, was made pubhc. 20 This opinion, which had been adopted on 1 March 2002, was also made public when the Committee of Ministers adopted, on 15 January 2003, it conclusions and recommendations. 21 But see supra note 16. 22 The pertinent opinion had been adopted on 13 September 2002. 23 The pertinent opinion had heen adopted on 12 September 2002. 24 On this issue, see also Rainer Hofmann, 'Review of the Monitoring Process ...', at 459. 25 These comments are all accessible at http://www.coe.int/t/e/human rights/minorities.

  • 26 In 2002, the Committee of Ministers adopted resolutions with regard to Croatia - ResCl\l,\(2002)1; the Czech Republic - ResCMN(2002)2; Cyprus - ResCMN(2002)3; Romania - ResCMN(2002)5; Estonia - ResC�r\(2002)8; the United Kingdom - ResCM?\(2002)9; and Italy- ResC?\1:\(2002)1O. In 2001, the Committee of Ministers adopted seven resolutions, namely on Denmark, Finland, Hungary, Liechtenstein, Malta, San Marino, and Slovakia. It might be added that, by mid-February 2003, it had adopted four more resolutions, namely with regard to Armenia, Germany, Moldova, and Ukraine. All these resolutions are available at http://www.coe.int/t/e/human_rights/minorities. 27 This clearly reflects the finding of the Advisory Committee in para. 70 and the comments in para. 31 and, as regards the Italian minority, paras. 45 and 46 of the opinion on Croatia. 28 This clearly reflects the finding of the Advisory Committee in para. 70 and the comments in paras. 24-6 of the opinion on Croatia. 29 This clearly reflects the finding of the Advisory Committee in para. 71 and the comments in paras. 59 and 62 of the opinion on Croatia. 30 This clearly reflects the finding of the Advisory Committee in para. 72 and the comments in paras. 25 and 31 of the opinion on Croatia. 31 This clearly reflects the finding of the Advisory Committee in para. 72 and the comments in paras. 40-2 and 54-8 of the opinion on Croatia.

  • 32 In line with this recommendation, the Croatian government organized, together with the CoE, a follow-up seminar in order to further strengthen the dialogue in progress; this seminar took place in Zagreb on 21 March 2002, less than two months after the adoption of the resolution. 33 This formulation had already been used in all the seven resolutions adopted in 2001 and was used in all the seven resolutions adopted in 2002. It can, therefore, be considered as consistent practice of the Committee of Ministers. 34 This clearly reflects the findings of the Advisory Committee in paras. 76 and 77 and the comments in paras. 32 and 33 of the opinion on the Czech Republic. 35 This clearly reflects the finding of the Advisory Committee in para. 78 and the comments in paras. 55, 65 and 67 of the opinion on the Czech Republic. 36 This clearly reflects the finding of the Advisory Committee in paras. 79 and 80 and the comments in paras. 25, 29 to 31, 35 to 46 and 61-3 of the opinion on the Czech Republic. 37 This clearly reflects the finding of the Advisory Committee in para. 80 and the comments in paras. 53, 54, 55, 60 and 66 of the opinion. 38 This clearly reflects the finding of the Advisory Committee in para. 49 and the comments in paras. 36 and 39 of the opinion on Cyprus.

  • 39 This clearly reflects the findings of the Advisory Committee in para. 48 and 50 and the comments in paras. 18, 21, 25 and 26 of the opinion on Cyprus. 40 This clearly reflects the finding of the Advisory Committee in para. 51 and the comments in paras. �l0-3 of the opinion on Cyprus. 41 This clearly reflects the finding of the Advisory Committee in para. 50 and the comments in para. 29 of the opinion on Cyprus. 42 This clearly reflects the finding of the Advisory Committee in para. 76 and the comments in paras. 30 and 32 of the opinion on Romania. 43 This clearly reflects the finding of the Advisory Committee in para. 77 and the comments in paras. 23, 49, 50-2, 61 and 68 of the opinion on Romania. 44 This clearly reflects the finding of the Advisory Committtee in para. 79 and the comments in paras. 48, 51, 53, 62 and 64 of the opinion on Romania.. 45 This clearly reflects the finding of the Advisory Committee in para. 78 and the comments in paras. 27-9, 37-42, 56-9, and 69-71 of the opinion on Romania.

  • 46 In line with this recommendation, the Romanian government organized, together with the CoE, a follow- up seminar in order to further strengthen the dialogue in progress; this seminar took place in Bucharest on 28 October 2002, seven months after the adoption of the resolution. 47 This clearly reflects the finding of the Advisory Committee in para. 66 and the comments in paras. 27 and 30 of the opinion on Estonia. 48 This clearly reflects the finding of the Advisory Committee in para. 67 and the comments in paras. 21-3, 35-8, 39-43, and 59 of the opinion on Estonia. 49 This clearly reflects the finding of the Advisory Committee in para. 68 and the comments in para. 29 of the opinion on Estonia. 50 This clearly reflects the finding of the Advisory Committee in para. 69 and the comments in paras. 25-6, and 55 of the opinion on Estonia. 51 This clearly reflects the finding of the Advisory Committee in para. 70 and the comments in paras.44-8 and 50-4 of the opinion on Estonia. 52 In line with this recommendation, the Estonian government organized, together with the CoE, a follow-up seminar in order further to strengthen the dialogue in progress; this seminar took place in Tallinn on 26 September 2002, three months after the adoption of the resolution.

  • 53 This clearly reflects the finding of the Advisory Committee in para. 130 and the comments in paras.14-7, 21, 43, and 57-9 of the opinion on the United Kingdom. 54 This clearly reflects the finding of the Advisory Committee in para. 131 and the comments in paras. 26-7, 44-50, and 96-9 of the opinion on the United Kingdom. 55 This clearly reflects the finding of the Advisory Committee in para. 132 and the comments in paras. 32-3 and 79-80 of the opinion on the United Kingdom. 56 This clearly reflects the finding of the Advisory Committee in para. 133 and the comments in paras. 37-8, 66-8, 70-4 and 92-3 of the opinion on the United Kingdom. 57 This clearly reflects the finding of the Advisory Committee in para. 134 and the comments in paras. 29-31, 40-2, 55, and 81-4 of the opinion on the United Kingdom. 58 This clearly reflects the finding of the Advisory Committee in para. 135 and the comments in paras.57-61 of the opinion on the United Kingdom.

  • 59 This clearly reflects the finding of the Advisory Committee in para. 71 and the comments in paras. 23, 28, 44, 48, 53, 57, 61-3 and 66 of the opinion on Italy. 60 This clearly reflects the finding of the Advisory Committee in para. 72 and the comments in paras.16, 29-31, 35, 46, 49, 50, 53, 58 and 64 of the opinion on Italy. 61 This clearly reflects the finding of the Advisory Committee in para. 73 and the comments in paras. 23,32,33, 50, 58, 59 and 63 of the opinion on Italy. 62 This clearly reflects the finding of the Advisory Committee in para. 74 and the comments in paras. 24-6, 34-9, 47, 51, 55, 60 and 65 of the opinion on Italy

  • 63 These were (in chronological order) the opinions on Romania (published on 10 January 2002 and already dealt with in the report covering the period between 1 January and 31 December 2001); the Czech Republic (published on 25 February 2001); Croatia (published on 6 February 2002); Cyprus (published on 21 Febru- ary 2002); Estonia (published on 12 April 2002); the United Kingdom (published on 22 May 2002); Italy (published on 3 July 2002); Germany (published on 12 September 2002); Austria (published on 7 November 2002); and Ukraine (published on 27 November 2002). 64 See Rainer Hofmann, `Review of the monitoring Process ...', 447-9.

  • 65 For the text of these declarations see http://www.coe.int/t/e/human-rights/minorities/. 66 These issues concern questions as to their legal quality (they might constitute declarations, interpretative dec- larations or even - disguised - reservations) as well as to their legal effect (are they considered to be hinding upon the Advisory Committee and the Committee of Ministers?). For a thorough discussion of these com- plex issues, see Jochen Abr. Frowein and Roland Bank, 'The Effect of Member States'Declarations Defining 'National Minorities' upon Signature or Ratification of the Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities', 59 ZaöRV(1999), at 649. 67 Cf. the opinions on Albania (adopted on 12 September 2002 and published on 18 February 2003) and Norway (adopted on 12 September 2002 and published on 13 February 2003); as of 1 April 2003, the other opinions adopted after 1 June 2002, namely those on Lithuania (adopted on 21 February 2003), the Russian Federation (adopted on 13 September 2002), Slovenia (adopted on 12 September 2002), Sweden (adopted on 20 February 2003) and Switzerland (adopted on 20 February 2003), were not yet in the public domain.

  • 68 See paras. 12-20 of the opinion on Austria (where the Advisory Committee encourages the Austrian authorities to continue to examine the issue of the existence of a Polish minority in consultation with the representatives of the Polish community, see in particular para. 19 of that opinion; according to the Austrian government, only the following groups are considered to meet the conditions set out in Article 1(2) of the Law on Ethnic Groups (Yolksgruppengesetz) and therefore recognized as national minorities: The Croat minority in Burgenland, the Slovene minority the Hungarian minority, the Czech minority, the Slovak minority and the Roma minority); paras.14-7 of the opinion on Croatia; paras.15-6 of the opinion on Cyprus; paras.14-5 of the opinion on the Czech Republic; paras.14-6 of the opinion on Estonia; paras. 13-5 of the opinion on Germany, paras. 13-5 of the opinion on Italy; paras. 13-5 of the opinion on Ukraine (where the Advisory Committee expects that the results of the 2001 census will provide a basis for an improved dialogue between persons belonging to so-called subetbnicgroups oftbe Ukrainian people- such as e.g. Rusyns - and the authori- ties, covering also issues pertaining to the impleruentation of the Framework Convention, see para. 16 of that opinion); and paras. 11-3 of the opinion on the United Kingdom (where the Advisory Committee noted that a number of persons living in Cornwall consider themselves to be a national minority within the scope of the Framework Convention, a view which is not shared by the British government, see para. 16 of that opinion). 69 See para. 16 of the opinion on Germany; see also para. 16 of the opinion on Austria where the Advisory Committee welcomes the identical approach taken by the Austrian government and encourages the authorities concerned to ensure its full implementation as concerns the numerous Burgenland Croats living in Vienna. 70 See para. 35 of the opinion on Austria; paras. 37-40 of the opinion on Germany; and para. 40 of the opinion on Italy.

  • 71 See para. 20 of the opinion on Austria; para. 17 of the opinion on Croatia; para. 22 of the opinion on Cyprus; para. 23 of the opinion on the Czech Republic; para. 18 of the opinion on Estonia; para. 18 of the opinion on Germany; para. 17 of the opinion on Italy; para. 18 of the opinion on Ukraine; and para. 17 of the opinion on the United Kingdom. 72 See para. 14 of the opinion on the United Kingdom. 73 See para. 17 of the opinion on Croatia and para. 17 of the opinion on Estonia. 74 See e.g.,18-21, 29, 30 and 41-2 of the opinion on Cyprus. 75 See supra text accompanying notes 40 and 41.

  • 76 It might be added that the same approach was followed in the opinion on Moldova (published on 15 Janu- ary 2003 and therefore outside the temporal scope of this report); see paras.10-1 of that opinion. 77 This report was received on 16 October 2002.

  • 78 See paras.18-21 of the opinion on Italy, in particular para. 18. 79 See ECJ, case C-281/98,flrtgonese v. Cassa di Risparmio di Bolzano Spfl, judgment of 6 June 2000, [2000] ECR 4139. 80 See Rainer Hofmann, 'Review of the Monitoring Process ...`, 449-57. 81 For details see Section B. consisting of an analytical, article-by-article overview of the comments of the Advisory Committee.

  • 82 See paras. 8 of the respective opinions on Italy and the United Kingdom; paras. 9 of the respective opinions on Austria and Germany; paras. 10 of the respective opinions on Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, and Ukraine; and para. 11 of the opinion on Cyprus.

  • 83 See para. 19 of the opinion on Ukraine with regard to the legal position of the Crimean Tatars resulting from Article 11 of the Ukrainian Constitution. 84 See para. 17 of the opinion on Denmark with regard to Faeroese and Greenlanders, and paras. 21-3 of the opinion on Finland with regard to the Sami. 85 See paras.18-20 of the opinion on Croatia. 86 See para. 19 of the opinion on Estonia; and para. 22 of the opinion on Ukraine; see also paras.19-21 of the opinion on Italy. 87 See para. 21 of the opinion on Germany; and para. 23 of the opinion on Ukraine; see previously paras.14-6 of the opinion on Slovakia.

  • 88 See para. 21 of the opinion on .-lustria; paras. 21-5 of the opinion on Croatia; paras. 23-4 of the opinion on Cyprus; paras. 24-6 of the opinion on the Czech Republic; para. 21 of the opinion on Estonia; para. 22 of the opinion on Germany; para. 22 of the opinion on Italy; paras. 26-8 of the opinion on Ukraine; and para. 21 of the opinion on the United Kingdom. See previously para. 25 of the opinion on Denmark; para. 15 of the opinion on Hungary; para. 23 of the opinion on Romania; and para 17 of the opinion on Slovakia. 89 See para. 22 of the opinion on Austria; para. 29 of the opinion on Croatia; and para. 28 of the opinion on the Czech Republic. See previously para. 69 of the opinion on Hungary para. 26 of the opinion on Romania; and para. 21 of the opinion on Slovakia. 90 See para. 23 of the opinion on Germany. 91 See para. 23 of the opinion on Austria; para. 28 of the opinion on Croatia; paras. 28-30 of the opinion on the Czech Republic; para. 24 of the opinion on Germany; paras. 24-25 of the opinion on Italy; para. 30 of the opinion on Ukraine; and paras.29-31 of the opinion on the United Kingdom. See previously para. 20 of the opinion on Fmland; paras.18-9 of the opinion on Hungary paras.27-9 of the opinion on Romania; and paras. 20-1 of the opinion on Slovakia. 92 See para. 27 of the opinion on Croatia; para. 31 of the opinion on the Czech Republir, para. 26 of the opin- ion on Estonia; para. 26 of the opinion on Italy; and para. 29 of the opinion on Ukraine.

  • 93 See paras. 24-7 of the opinion on Austria; para. 30 of the opinion on Croatia; para. 29 of the opinion on Cyprus; para. 32 of the opinion on the Czech Republic; paras. 27 and 28 of the opinion on Estonia; paras. 25-8 of the opinion on Germany; paras. 28-30 of the opinion on Italy; paras.32-4 of the opinion on Ukraine; and paras. 37-9 of the opinion on the United Kingdom. See previously para. 21 of the opinion on Hungary; paras. 30 and 31 of the opinion on Romania; and paras. 22-4 of the opinion on Slovakia. 94 See paras. 26 and 27 of the opinion on Austria; and paras. 30-3 of the opinion on Italy. 95 See paras. 40-2 of the opinion on the United Kingdom. 96 See paras. 29-32 of the opinion on Germany. 97 See para. 31 of the opinion on Austria; paras. 35-8 of the opinion on the Czech Republic; para. 33 of the opinion on Germany; para. 35 of the opinion on Italy; and para. 36 of the opinion on Ukraine. See previ- ously para. 25 of the opinion on Finland; and para. 38 of the opinion on Slovakia.

  • 98 See paras. 39-43 of the opinion on the Czech Republic; para. 38 of the opinion on Italv; para. 37 of the opinion on Ukraine; and paras. 47-50 of the opinion on the United Kingdom. See previously para. 27 of the opinion on Finland; para. 25 of the opinion on Hungary; paras. 40 and 41 of the opinion on Romania; and para. 28 of the opinion on Slovakia. 99 See para. 32 of the opinion on Austria; para. 33 of the opinion on Croatia; para. 37 of the opinion on the Czech Republic; para. 39 of the opinion on Ukraine; and para. 53 of the opinion on the United Kingdom. See previously para. 24 of the opinion on Finland; paras. 34 and 35 of the opinion on Romania; and para. 26 of the opinion on Slovakia. 100 See paras. 33-5 of the opinion on Austria; paras.36-40 of the opinion on Germany, para. 40 of the opinion on Italy; para. 37 of the opinion on Ukraine; and paras. 47 and 51 of the opinion on the United Kingdom. 101 See para. 40 of the opinion on Ukraine.

  • 102 See para. 38 of the opinion on Croatia. 103 See paras. 57-61 of the opinion on the United Kingdom. 104 See, e.g., para. 41 of the opinion on Austria dealing with the specific needs of Czechs, Slovaks and Hungar- ians living in Vienna; para. 38 of the opinion on Estonia dealing with obligation for television broadcasters to provide Estonian translation of their broadcasting in a minority language; para. 44 of the opinion on Italy dealing with the problem of technically restricted reception of radio and television broadcasts for some national minorities; and para. 48 of the opinion on Ukraine dealing with the hmited availability of broadcasting in the Crimean Tatar language. 105 See paras. 38-40 of the opinion on Austria; paras. 40-2 of the opinion on Croatia; paras. 53 and 54 of the opinion on the Czech Republic; paras. 35-7 of the opinion on Estonia; paras. 44-7 of the opinion on Ger- many ; para. 46 of the opinion on Italy; paras. 43-7 of the opinion on Ukraine; and para. 69 of the opinion on the United Kingdom. 106 See para. 37 of the opinion on Estonia; and para. 46 of the opinion on Germany. 107 See paras. 44-6 of the opinion on Austria. 108 See paras. 43-5 of the opinion on Croatia.

  • 109 See paras. 55-7 of the opinion on the Czech Republic. 110 See paras. 39-41 of the opinion on Estonia. 111 See para. 51 of the opinion on Germany. 112 See paras. �t8-50 of the opinion on Italy. 113 See paras. 49-53 of the opinion on Ukraine. 114 See paras. 70-2 of the opinion on the United Kingdom. 115 See paras. 44, 40 and 51 respectivelv of the opinions on Croatia, Estonia and Ukraine. 116 See para. 45 of the opinion on Austria.

  • 117 See para. 49 of the opinion on Germany. 118 See para. 58 of the opinion on the Czech Republic. See previously para. 37 of the opinion on Slovakia. 119 See paras. 54-6 of the opinion on Ukraine. 120 See para. 43 of the opinion on Estonia. 121 See paras. 48-53, in particular para. 50 of the opinion on Austria. 122 See para. 46 of the opinion on Croatia. 123 See para 59 nfrhf opinion on the Czech Republic. 124 See para. 42 of the opinion on Estonia.

  • 125 See paras. 52 and 53 of the opinion on Germany. 126 See para. 52 of the opinion on Italy. 127 See para. 57 of the opinion on Ukraine. 128 See previously para. 37 of the opinion on Finland; para. 41 of the opinion on Hungary; paras. 57-9 of the opinion on Romania; and paras. 39 and 40 of the opinion on Slovakia. 129 See para. 55 of the opinion on Italy; para. 60 of the opinion on Ukraine; and paras. 81-3 of the opinion on the United Kingdom. 130 See para. 49 of the opinion on Croatia; paras. 61-3 of the opinion on the Czech Republic; para. 60 of the opinion on Ukraine; and para. 82 of the opinion on the United Kingdom. It should be noted, however, that the Advisory Committee commended Austria for the determined efforts of the authorities due to which there are no longer any Roma children attending special schools for mentally disabled children, see para. 57 of the opinion on Austria. 131 See para. 55 of the opinion on Austria; para. 48 of the opinion on Croatia; and para. 59 of the opinion on Ukraine.

  • 132 See para. 47 of the opinion on Estonia. 133 See para. 59 of the opinion on Austria; and paras. 56 and 57 of the opinion on Germany. 134 See para. 63 of the opinion on Austria; and paras. 59-61 of the opinion on Germany. 135 See paras. 50-2 of the opinion on Estonia; and paras. 63-5 of the opinion on Ukraine. 136 See para. 52 of the opinion on Croatia; and para. 60 of the opinion on Italy. 137 See, e.g., paras. 61-5 of the opinion on Austria; and para. 51 of the opinion on Estonia.

  • 138 See paras. 58-62 of the opinion on Croatia; para. 70 of the opinion on the Czech Republic; paras. 69 and 70 of the opinion on Ukraine; and para. 94 of the opinion on the United Kingdom. 139 See paras. 69 and 70 of the opinion on Austria; para. 63 of the opinion on Croatia; para. 42 of the opinion on Cyprus; para. 70 of the opinion on the Czech Republic; paras. 57 and 58 of the opinion on Estonia; para. 65 of the opinion on Germany; para. 64 of the opinion on Italy; and para. 72 of the opinion on Ukraine. 140 See paras. 61 and 62 of the opinion on Italy. See previously para. 36 of the opinion on Denmark; and para. 47 of the opinion on Finland. 141 See paras. 55-7 of the opinion on Croatia; para. 66 of the opinion on Italy; and para. 96 of the opinion on the United Kingdom. 142 See para. 59 of the opinion on Estonia; paras. 74 and 75 of the opinion on Ukraine; and para. 95 of the opinion on the United Kingdom. 143 See paras. 55 and 60 of the opinion on Estonia. 144 See para. 71 of the opinion on Austria; para. 65 of the opinion on Croatia; para. 71 of the opinion on the Czech Repubhc; para. 66 of the opinion on Germany; and para. 65 of the opinion on Italy. In this context, see previously para. 48 of the opinion on Finland; para. 54 of the opinion on Hungary; para. 69 of the opin- ion on Romania; and para. 47 of the opinion on Slovakia.

  • 145 See para. 66 of the opinion on Croatia. 146 See para. 63 of the opinion on Estonia; and para. 77 of the opinion on Ukraine. See previously para. 56 of the opinion on Hungary; para. 73 of the opinion on Romania; and para. 50 of the opinion on Slovakia. 147 See para. 74 of the opinion on Austria; para. 68 of the opinion on Croatia; para. 46 of the opinion on Cyprus; para. 74 of the opinion on the Czech republic; para. 64 of the opinion on Estonia; para. 70 of the opinion on Germany; para. 69 of the opinion on Italy; and para. 79 of the opinion on Ukraine. See previously para. 53 of the opinion on Finland; para. 57 of the opinion on Hungary; para. 74 of the opinion on Romania; and para. 51 of the opinion on Slovakia. 148 See Rainer Hofmann, 'Review of the Monitoring Process ...', at 457.

  • 149 The programmes of these seminars are available at http://www.coe.int/T7e/human_rights/minoriti€s.

  • 150 This outline was adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 15 January 2003, see CoE document ACFC/ INF(2003)001. 151 See Rainer Hofmann, `Review of the Monitoring Process ...`, at 459.

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 43 23 2
Full Text Views 62 4 1
PDF Downloads 5 5 1