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 Research Fellow at the Institute of International Law and International Relations, Karl-Franzens-University Graz, Austria.

Login via Institution

Purchase instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):

€25.00$30.00

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

  • 1 These were: Albania (first report received on 26 July 2001), Armenia (11 June 2001), Austria (15 November 2000), Azerbaijan (4 June 2002), Bosnia and Herzegovina (20 February 2004), Bul- garia (9 April 2003), Croatia (16 March 1999), Cyprus (1 March 1999), Czech Republic (1 April 1999), Denmark (6 May 1999), Estonia (22 December 1999), Finland (16 February 1999) Germany (24 February 2000), Hungary (21 May 1999), Ireland (13 November 2001), Italy (3 May 1999), Liechtenstein (3 March 1999), Lithuania (31 October 2001), Malta (27 July 1999), Moldova (29 June 2000), Norway (2 March 2001), Poland (10 July 2002), Romania (24 June 1999), Russian Federation (8 March 2000), San Marino (3 February 1999), Serbia and Montenegro (16 October 2002), Slovak Republic (4 May 1999), Slovenia (29 November 2000), Spain (19 December 2000), Sweden (8 June 2001), Switzerland (16 May 2001), The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (23 September 2003), Ukraine (2 November 1999), and the United Kingdom (26 July 1999). 2 State parties of the Framework Convention are not necessarily member states of the Council of Europe (hereinafter "CoE"); when the Framework Convention entered into force for the then Federal Republic of Yugoslavia on 1 September 2002, this country was not a member state of the CoE. Serbia and Montenegro, however, became a member of the CoE on 3 April 2003. The same is true for Bosnia and Herzegovina, which became a member of the CoE on 24 February 2002, while the Framework Convention had already entered into force on 1 June 2000. Today, all state parties are member states of the CoE. Conversely, seven member states of the CoE have signed, but not yet ratified the Framework Convention. These are: Belgium (signed on 31 July 2001), Georgia (21 January 2000), Greece (22 September 1997), Iceland (1 February 1995), Latvia (11 May 1995), Luxembourg (20 July 1995), and the Netherlands (1 February 1995). Three member states - Andorra, France, and Turkey - have taken no steps at all to become legally bound by the Framework Convention.

  • 3 An outline for state reports to be submitted under the second monitoring cycle, in conformity with Article 25(1) of the Framework Convention, was published in 2003, see ACFC/INF(2003)001. A list of all state reports due in 2004 under the second monitoring cycle can be found at http:// www.coe.int/minorities. Five countries have already submitted their second reports. These are: Croatia (13 April 2004), Denmark (14 May 2004), Hungary (7 May 2004), Liechtenstein (25 March 2004) and Moldova (7 May 2004). 4 For a review of earlier developments see Rainer Hofmann, "Review of the Monitoring Process of the Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities", 1 EYMI (2001/2), 435-60 and Rainer Hofmann, "Review of the Monitoring Process of the Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities", 2 EYNII (2002/3), 401-33. 5 See Hofmann, "Review of the Monitoring Process ...", 2002/3, 402-5. 6 Rules of Procedure of the Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protec- tion of National Minorities, adopted on 29 October 1998, ACFC/INF(1998)002.

  • 7 On the establishment on country-specific working groups in order to speed up the monitoring process, see Hofmann, "Review of the Monitoring Process ...", 2001/2, 440. 8 Since 2001, opinions have been structured as follows: I. Preparation of the current opinion; II. General remarks; III. Specific comments in respect of Articles 1-19; IV. Main findings and com- ments of the Advisory Committee; and V. Concluding remarks. 9 Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities - Renewal of authorisations granted to the Advisory Committee for the first monitoring cycle, CM/Del/Dec(2003)835/4.3E of 8 April 2003. 10 It should be noted here that during the first monitoring cycle the Advisory Committee has a pertinent mandate to hold such meetings; on this issue, see Hofmann, "Review of the Monitor- ing Process ...", 2001/2, 442.

  • 11 Out of 34 submitted state reports, nine were submitted with a delay exceeding 15 months. These were: Armenia (report due on 1 November 1999, received on 11 June 2001), Austria (due on 1 July 1999, received on 15 November 2000), Bosnia and Herzegovina (due on 1 June 2001, received on 20 February 2004), Bulgaria (due on 1 September 2000, received on 9 April 2003), 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), Switzerland (due on 1 February 2000, received on 16 May 2001) and Macedonia (due on 1 February 1999, received on 23 September 2003). Only five were received with less than a month delay; these were: Czech Republic (due and received on 1 April 1999), Finland (due on 1 February 1999, received on 16 February 1999), Liechtenstein (due on 1 March 1999, received on 3 March 1999), San Marino (due on 1 February 1999, received on 3 February 1999), and Sweden (due on 1 June 2001, received on 8 June 2001). 12 See Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities - Failure to comply with the reporting obligation, CM/Del/Dec(2003)832/4.2E of 19 March 2003. 13 See Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities - Proposal regarding the commencement of the monitoring of the Framework Convention without a state report, CM/ Del/Dec(2003)850/4.2E of 3 September 2003.

  • 14 See Rainer Hofmann, "Review of the Monitoring Process ...",2001/2,443. 15 These were: Albania (opinion adopted on 12 September 2002, published on 18 February 2003), Lithuania (opinion adopted on 21 February 2003, published on 25 September 2003), Norway (opinion adopted on 12 September 2002, published on 13 February 2003), Sweden (opinion adopted on 20 February 2003, published on 25 August 2003), and Switzerland (opinion adopted on 20 February 2003, published on 21 August 2003). In addition, two more opinions adopted in 2003 were made public in 2004: Azerbaijan (opinion adopted on 22 May 2003, published on 26 January 2004), and Serbia and Montenegro (opinion adopted on 27 November 2003, published on 2 March 2004). 16 On this issue, see more detailed Hofmann, "Review of the Monitoring Process ...', 2002/3, 405-6. 17 The Advisory Committee's opinion was published on 2 March 2004, Serbia and Montenegro's Is comment on 29 April 2004. 18 Opinion adopted on 16 May 2002, resolution adopted and published on 15 January 2003. 19 Opinion adopted on 1 March 2002, resolution adopted and published on 15 January 2003. 20 Opinion adopted on 13 September 2002, resolution adopted and published on 10 July 2003. 21 Opinion adopted on 22 May 2003, not yet public. 22 Opinion adopted on 27 November 2003, not yet public. 23 Opinion adoped on 12 September 2002, not yet public. 24 Opinion adopted on 27 November 2003, not yet public.

  • 25 These are the resolutions on the implementation of the Framework Convention by the fol- lowing state parties: Armenia (ResCMN(2003)2), Germany (ResCMN(2003)3), Moldova (ResCMN(2003)4), Norway (ResCMN(2003)6), the Russian Federation (ResCMN(2003)9), Lithuania (ResCMN(2003)11), Sweden (ResCMN(2003)12), and Switzerland (ResCMN(2003)13). 26 This reflects the findings of the Advisory Committee in paras. 104-6 and 107-8 and the com- ments in paras. 63-5 and 71-6 of the opinion on Armenia. 27 This reflects the findings of the Advisory Committee in paras. 98-100 and the comments in paras. 46-54 of the opinion on Armenia. 28 This reflects the findings of the Advisory Committee in paras.109-11 and the comments in paras. 77-82 of the opinion on Armenia. 29 This reflects the findings of the Advisory Committee in para. 89 and the comments in paras.22-4 of the opinion on Armenia. 30 This reflects the findings of the Advisory Committee in para. 94 and the comments in paras. 34-6 of the opinion on Armenia.

  • 31 This reflects the findings of the Advisory Committee in paras. 77 and 85-7 and the comments in paras. 29-32, 51-3 and 58-61 of the opinion on Germany. 32 This reflects the findings of the Advisory Committee in paras. 83-4 and the comments in paras. 46-7 of the opinion on Germany. 33 This reflects the findings of the Advisory Committee in paras. 75, 78-80 and 90 and in the com- ments in paras. 24, 33-6 and 66 of the opinion on Germany. 34 This reflects the findings of the Advisory Committee in paras.100-1 and the comments in paras. 20-5 of the opinion on Moldova. 35 This reflects the findings of the Advisory Committee in paras.111-5 and the comments in paras. 64-6 of the opinion on Moldova. 36 This reflects the findings of the Advisory Committee in para. 110 and the comments in paras. 56-7 of the opinion on Moldova. 37 This reflects the findings of the Advisory Committee in para. 116 and the comments in paras. 71-6 of the opinion on Moldova.

  • 38 This reflects the findings of the Advisory Committee in paras.103-4,117 and 120 and the com- ments in paras. 33-5, 42, 77 and 93 of the opinion on Moldova. 39 This reflects the findings of the Advisory Committee in paras. 99-102 and the comments in paras. 49-57 of the opinion on Ukraine. 40 This reflects the findings of the Advisory Committee in paras. 85-7 and 91-2 and the comments in paras. 30-1 and 36-9 of the opinion on Ukraine. 41 This reflects the findings of the Advisory Committee in paras. 87 and 110-2 and the comments in paras. 29 and 70-5 of the opinion on Ukraine. 42 This reflects the findings of the Advisory Committee in paras.103-8 and the comments in paras. 58-61 and 63-8 of the opinion on Ukraine. 43 This reflects the findings of the Advisory Committee in para. 96 and the comments in paras. 41, 43, 46, 51, 57 and 60 of the opinion on Norway. 44 This reflects the findings of the Advisory Committee in para. 79 and the comments in para. 32 of the opinion on Norway. 45 This reflects the findings of the Advisory Committee in paras. 72-6 and 90 and the comments in paras. 21-8 and 48-50 of the opinion on Norway. 46 This reflects the findings of the Advisory Committee in paras. 77 and 86-7 and the comments in paras. 30, 42, 44, 47-51, 55 and 58 of the opinion on Norway

  • 47 This reflects the findings of the Advisory Committee in paras. 76, 94 and 98-9 and the comments in paras. 23-8, 54 and 63-4 of the opinion on Norway 48 This reflects the findings of the Advisory Committee in para. 97 and the comments in para. 61 of the opinion on Norway. 49 This reflects the findings of the Advisory Committee in para. 128 and the comments in paras. 43-5 of the opinion on the Russian Federation. 50 This reflects the findings of the Advisory Committee in paras. 132 and 134-7 and the comments in paras. 56-64 of the opinion on the Russian Federation. 51 This reflects the findings of the Advisory Committee in paras.133,138 and 141 and the comments in paras. 34, 57, 65 and 71 of the opinion on the Russian Federation. 52 This reflects the findings of the Advisory Committee in paras. 127 and 131 and the comments in paras. 41 and 49-53 of the opinion on the Russian Federation. 53 This reflects the findings of the Advisory Committee in para. 159 and the comments in paras. 48, 102 and 106 of the opinion on the Russian Federation. 54 This reflects the findings of the Advisory Committee in paras.124-6 and 162 and the comments in paras. 35-8 and 110-3 of the opinion on the Russian Federation. 55 This reflects the findings of the Advisory Committee in paras.145-8 and the comments in paras. 79-86 of the opinion on the Russian Federation.

  • 56 This reflects the findings of the Advisory Committee in paras.150-5 and the comments in paras. 88-91 and 93-100 of the opinion on the Russian Federation. 57 This reflects the findings of the Advisory Committee in paras. 156 and 160 and the comments in paras.101-3 and 107 of the opinion on the Russian Federation. 58 This reflects the findings of the Advisory Committee in para. 98 and the comments in paras.53-6 of the opinion on Lithuania. 59 This reflects the findings of the Advisory Committee in para. 99 and the comments in paras. 57-8 of the opinion on Lithuania. 60 This reflects the findings of the Advisory Committee in paras.100-3 and the comments in paras. 59-63 and 67-74 of the opinion on Lithuania. 61 This reflects the findings of the Advisory Committee in para. 93 and the comments in paras.32-4, 64-5 and 81 of the opinion on Lithuania. 62 This reflects the findings of the Advisory Committee in paras. 81-94 and the comments in paras. 41-62 of the opinion on Sweden. 63 This reflects the finding of the Advisory Committee in para. 86 and the comments in para. 52 of the opinion on Sweden. 64 This reflects the finding of the Advisory Committee in para. 77 and the comments in paras. 30-2 of the opinion on Sweden.

  • 65 This reflects the findings of the Advisory Committee in paras. 73-5 and 78 and the comments in paras. 24-7 and 33-4 of the opinion on Sweden. 66 This reflects the findings of the Advisory Committee in paras. 96-7 and the comments in paras. 64-6 of the opinion on Sweden. 67 This reflects the findings of the Advisory Committee in paras. 87 and 90 and the comments in paras. 26, 30-2, 39 and 52-5 of the opinion on Switzerland. 68 This reflects the finding of the Advisory Committee in para. 95 and the comment in para. 56 of the opinion on Switzerland. 69 This reflects the findings of the Advisory Committee in paras.100-2 and the comments in paras. 67-73 of the opinion on Switzerland. 70 This reflects the findings of the Advisory Committee in paras. 88-90 and 104 and the comments in paras. 33-8, 41-2 and 76-7 of the opinion on Switzerland. 71 This is a standard formulation used in all resolutions adopted in 2003 as well as in those adopted in 2002 and 2001. 72 The following governments organized, together with the CoE, follow-up seminars in 2003: Armenia (Yerevan, 3-4 June 2003), Germany (Berlin, 25-26 June 2003), Slovakia (Bratislava, 8 July 2003), Moldova (Chisinau, 25-26 September 2003), Ukraine (Kiev,16-17 September 2003) and Czech Republic (Prague, 2 December 2003).

  • 73 For a more in depth-analysis of the impact of the follow-up seminars see Hofmann, "Review of the Monitoring Process ... ", 2002/3, 430-2. 74 The programmes of all follow-up seminars are available at http://www.coe.int/T/e/human_ rights/ Minorities/. 75 On the relationship between the two Committees with regard to the outcome of the monitoring process see Gaetano Pentassuglia, "Monitoring Minority Rights in Europe: The Implementation Machinery of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities - With Special Reference to the Role of the Advisory Committee", 6 IJMGR (1999), 417-61, 449-50. 76 This was the case also in the previous years, see Hofmann, "Review of the Monitoring Process .. ", 2001/2, 444; and Hofmann, "Review of the Monitoring Process ... 2002/3,413. 77 These were: Albania (published on 18 February 2003), Armenia (published on 15 January 2003), Lithuania (published on 25 September 2003), Moldova (published on 15 January 2003), Norway

  • (published on 13 February 2003), the Russian Federation (published on 10 July 2003), Sweden (published on 25 August 2003), and Switzerland (published on 21 August 2003). 78 For a more in-depth analysis of the personal scope of the Framework Convention see Hofmann, "Review of the Monitoring Process ...", 2001/2, 447-9, and Hofmann, "Review of the Monitor- ing Process ...", 2002/3, 414-6. 79 On this issue see also 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 on the Protection of National Minorities", 59 ZaoYR (1999), 649-76. 80 This point of view is reflected in paras.17-9 of the opinion on Albania, paras.14-6 of the opinion on Armenia, paras. 15-7 of the opinion on Lithuania, paras. 17-9 of the opinion on Moldova, paras.16-8 of the opinion on Norway, paras.17-9 of the opinion on the Russian Federation, paras. 13-5 of the opinion on Sweden, and paras.17-9 of the opinion on Switzerland. 81 See para. 23 of the opinion on Albania, para. 21 of the opinion on Armenia, paras. 20-4 and 27 of the opinion on Lithuania, para. 20 of the opinion on Norway, paras. 22-3 of the opinion on the Russian Federation, para. 20 of the opinion on Sweden, and para. 24 of the opinion on Switzer- land. 82 See paras. 7 and 48 of the opinion on Cyprus; see also Hofmann, "Review of the Monitoring Process ... ", 2002/3, 416-7.

  • 83 See para. 10 of the opinion on Moldova. 84 See the report submitted by the Republic of Moldova, ACFC/SR(2000)2, 29 June 2000, Article 19. 85 See para. 11 of the opinion on Moldova. 86 See opinion on Serbia and Montenegro, ACFC/INF/OP/I(2004)2, made public on 2 March 2004, para. 9. 87 See paras.12-3 of the opinion on Albania, paras. 27-9 of the opinion on the Russian Federation, and para. 26 of the opinion on Moldova. Furthermore, the Advisory Committee welcomed the censuses held in Armenia, (para. 19 of the opinion on Armenia), and Lithuania in 2001 (para. 11 of the opinion on Lithuania). 88 See para. 25 of the opinion on the Russian Federation

  • 89 See paras. 28 and 30 of the opinion on Albania, para. 30 of the opinion on Armenia, para. 32 of the opinion on Moldova, para. 27 of the opinion on Norway and para. 33 of the opinion on the Russian Federation. 90 See paras. 41-2 of the opinion on Armenia and para. 46 of the opinion on Lithuania. 91 See paras. 29-31, 37-8, 40 and 51 of the opinion on Armenia, paras. 32-4, 42, 44-6, 64-5, 74 and 81 of the opinion on Lithuania, 33-6, 42, 57, 77 and 93 of the opinion on Moldova, paras. 23, 28, 36, 54, and 63 of the opinion on Norway, paras. 42-3, 58, 62 and 110 of the opinion on the Russian Federation, paras. 24, 26, 29, 33-5, 38, 53 and 66 of the opinion on Sweden, and paras. 28, 33-8, 41-2, 63-4, 73, and 76-7 of the opinion on Switzerland. 92 See Hofmann, "Review of the Monitoring Process ...", 2002/3, 418. 93 See footnote 77. 94 The opinions on Azerbaijan, Ireland and Serbia and Montenegro were published in 2004 on 26 January, 5 May and 2 March respectively. The opinions on Poland, Slovenia and Spain have not yet been made public. Portugal has not yet submitted a state report.

  • 95 See para. 14 of the opinion on Albania, para. 11 of the opinion on Armenia, para. 12 of the opinion on Lithuania, para. 14 of the opinion on Moldova, para. 12 of the opinion on Norway, para. 14 of the opinion on the Russian Federation, para. 10 of the opinion on Sweden, and para. 13 of the opinion on Switzerland. 96 See para. 20 of the opinion on Albania. 97 See paras. 21-3 of the opinion on Albania, paras. 18-20 of the opinion on Lithuania, paras 20-1 of the opinion on Moldova, para. 20 of the opinion on Norway, paras. 21-3 of the opinion on the Russian Federation, paras. 16 and 19-20 of the opinion on Sweden, and para. 24 of the opinion on Switzerland. 98 See paras. 20-1 of the opinion on Armenia. 99 See Hofmann, "Review of the Monitoring Process ...", 2002/3, 419-20. 100 See para. 19 of the opinion on Norway, para. 26 of the opinion on the Russian Federation, and para. 18 of the opinion on Sweden.

  • 101 See paras. 24-5 of the opinion on the Russian Federation. 102 See para. 22 of the opinion on Norway, para. 32 of the opinion on the Russian Federation, paras. 21-2 of the opinion on Sweden, and paras. 25-7 of the opinion on Switzerland. 103 See paras. 26-7 of the opinion on Albania. 104 See paras. 34-9 of the opinion on the Russian Federation. 105 See para. 26 of the opinion on Norway, where also a number of other institutions was addressed, para. 40 of the opinion on the Russian Federation, and para. 25 of the opinion on Sweden. 106 See paras. 26-7 of the opinion on Armenia. 107 See para. 29 of the opinion on Lithuania.

  • 108 See para. 32 of the opinion an Albania, and para. 31 of the opinion on Moldova. 109 See para. 34 of the opinion on Albania, para. 31 of the opinion on Norway, paras. 46-7 of the opinion on the Russian Federation, and para. 28 of the opinion on Sweden. 110 See para. 39 of the opinion on Lithuania, and para. 38 of the opinion Moldova. 111 See paras. 34-6 of the opinion on Armenia, and paras. 39-40 of the opinion on Moldova. 112 See paras. 49-54 of the opinion on the Russian Federation. 113 See paras. 29-32 of the opinion on Switzerland. 114 See para. 40 of the opinion on Lithunia.

  • 115 See para. 40 of the opinion on Albania, para. 37 of the opinion on Norway, paras. 59 and 62 of the opinion on the Russian Federation, and para. 38 of the opinion on Sweden. 116 See paras. 58-61 of the opinion on the Russian Federation. 117 See para. 41 of the opinion on Armenia. 118 For similar consideration in previous opinions of the Advisory Committee, see Hofmann, "Review of the Monitoring Process ...°2002/3, 423. 119 See para. 43 of the opinion on Lithuania, para. 48 of the opinion on Moldova, para. 36 of the opinion on Norway para. 58 of the opinion on the Russian Federation, para. 37 of the opinion on Sweden, and paras. 39 and 43-5 of the opinion on Switzerland.

  • 120 See para. 49 of the opinion on Moldova. 121 See paras. 68-70 of the opinion on the Russian Federation. 122 See Hofmann, "Review of the Monitoring Process ... ", 2002/3, 423-4. 123 See para. 43 of the opinion on Albania. 124 See para. 50 of the opinion on Moldova. 125 See paras. 39-40 of the opinion on Norway. 126 See paras. 46-9 of the opinion on Albania, paras. 50-1 of the opinion on Armenia, para. 52 of the opinion on Lithuania, para. 44 of the opinion on Norway with regard to the Kven minority, para. 75 of the opinion on the Russian Federation, para. 46 of the opinion on Sweden, and para. 49 of the opinion on Switzerland with regard to the Romanche daily newspaper. 127 See para. 76 of the opinion on the Russian Federation; see also para. 77 of this opinion for the incompatibility with Article 9 of broadcasting only in the state language and the language of a "titular nation7.

  • 128 See para. 52 of the opinion on Armenia. 129 See para. 50 of the opinion on Albania. 130 See para. 51 of the opinion on Albania. 131 See paras. 56-7 of the opinion on Moldova, and para. 44 of the opinion on Sweden. 132 See paras. 52-3 of the opinion on Albania, para.58-9 of the opinion on Armenia, and para. 47 of the opinion on Norway with regard to the Kven minority. 133 See paras. 53-6 of the opinion on Lithuania, paras. 84-6 of the opinion on the Russian Federa- tion, and para. 50 of the opinion on Sweden. 134 See paras. 61-2 of the opinion on Moldova. This has already been stated in earlier opinions; see e.g. paras. 43-4 of the opinion on Croatia, para. 40 of the opinion on Estonia and para. 51 of the opinion on Ukraine. In its opinion on Austria, the Advisory Committee explicitly welcomed a numerical threshold according to which the minority language can be used in official dealings if the minority population exceeds 10% of the total population in a given municipality; see para. 45 of the opinion on Austria.

  • 135 See paras. 48-9 of the opinion on Sweden. 136 See para. 60 of the opinion on Armenia. 137 See paras. 52-6 of the opinion on Switzerland. 138 See para. 80 of the opinion on the Russian Federation, and para. 47 of the opinion on Sweden. 139 See paras. 65-6 of the opinion on Moldova, and para. 81 of the opinion on the Russian Federa- tion. 140 See paras. 48-50 of the opinion on Norway. 141 See paras. 56-7 of the opinion on Albania, and paras. 61-2 of the opinion on Armenia. 142 See para. 58 of the opinion on Lithuania.

  • 143 See paras. 58-9 of the opinion on Switzerland, where this problem arose with regard to Roman- che in some municipalities in Graubunden. 144 See paras. 63-5 and 68 of the opinion on Armenia, para. 60 of the opinion on Lithuania, and paras. 75-6 of the opinion on Moldova. 145 See para. 62 of the opinion on Lithuania, and paras. 69-70 of the opinion on Moldova. 146 See para. 57 of the opinion on Albania, and para. 89 of the opinion on the Russian Federation. 147 See para. 53 of the opinion on Norway, and para. 52 of the opinion on Sweden. 148 See paras. 90-1 of the opinion on the Russian Federation. 149 See para. 55 of the opinion on Sweden.

  • 150 See paras. 65-6 of the opinion on Switzerland. 151 See para. 71 of the opinion on Armenia, and para. 94 of the opinion on the Russian Federation. 152 See paras. 57-8 of the opinion on Sweden. 153 See paras. 68-9 of the opinion on Lithuania. 154 See paras. 96-9 of the opinion on the Russian Federation, and paras. 59-60 of the opinion on Sweden. 155 See para. 59 of the opinion on Norway. 156 See para. 100 of the opinion on the Russian Federation. 157 See para. 67 of the opinion on Albania, paras. 85-6 of the opinion on Moldova.

  • 158 See paras.102-4 and 106 of the opinion on the Russian Federation. 159 With regard to Armenia, however, where a Co-ordinating Council for National Minorities has already been established, the Advisory Committee took note of various difficulties and expressed doubts on its efficiency, see paras. 78-80 of the opinion on Armenia. Furthermore, the procedures of the Lithuanian Council for National Minorities were considered as not always satisfactory, see para. 79 of the opinion on Lithuania. See also paras. 86-9 of the opinion on Moldova, para. 61 of the opinion on Norway (but urging further coordination activities), and para.107-8 of the opinion on the Russian Federation (where other consultative structures exist, which the Advisory Committee considered to be not yet fully efficient). 160 See paras. 63-4 of the opinion on Sweden. 161 See paras. 69-72 of the opinion on Albania, and paras. 75-8 of the opinion on Lithuania. 162 See para. 80 of the opinion on Lithuania. 163 See para. 64 of the opinion on Norway. 164 See para. 75 of the opinion on Switzerland. 165 See para. 82 of the opinion on Lithuania.

  • 166 See paras. 94-5 of the opinion on Moldova. 167 See paras.110-4 of the opinion on the Russian Federation. 168 See para. 78 of the opinion on Switzerland. 169 See para. 78 of the opinion on Albania, para. 83 of the opinion on Lithuania, and para. 115 of the opinion on the Russian Federation. 170 See para. 84 of the opinion on Armenia. 171 See para. 79 of the opinion on Albania, para. 85 of the opinion on Armenia, para. 84 of the opin- ion on Lithuania, para. 97 of the opinion on Moldova, para. 66 of the opinion on Norway, para. 116 of the opinion on the Russian Federation, and para. 68 of the opinion on Sweden. 172 See para. 85 of the opinion on Lithuania.

  • 173 See para. 116 of the opinion on the Russian Federation. 174 See paras. 87-9 of the opinion on Lithuania. 175 On this occasion, a conference to mark the 5th Anniversary of the entry into force of the Frame- work Convention for the Protection of National Minorities was held in Strasbourg from 30-31 October 2003. A special file is available at http://www.coe.int/minorities. 176 See for example Pentassuglia, "Monitoring Minority Rights in Europa 435 et seq. 177 On this issue, with a special focus on media-related standards, see Karol Jakubowicz, "Persons belonging to National Minorities and the Media", paper presented at the Conference to mark the 5th Anniversary of the entry into force of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, Strasbourg, 30-31 October 2003,14 et seq.

  • 178 See Alan Philips, "The Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities: A Policy Analysis" MRG Policy Paper (2002). 179 See Jakubowicz, "Persons belonging to National Minorities ..."; Alan Phillips, "Commentary on Social and Economic Participation of Persons belonging to National Minorities"; Marc Weller, "Creating the Conditions necessary for the Effective Participation of persons belong- ing to National Minorities"; and Duncan Wilson, "Educational Rights of Persons belonging to National Minorities", all presented at the Conference to mark the 5th Anniversary of the entry into force of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, Strasbourg, 30-31 October 2003. 180 See also Rainer Hofmann, "The Framework Convention at the end of the first monitoring cycle", paper presented at the Conference to mark the 5th Anniversary of the entry into force of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, Strasbourg, 30-31 October 2003, 5 et seg.

  • 181 See Hofmann, "Review of the Monitoring Process ...", 2001/2, 459; and Hofmann, "Review of the Monitoring Process ...', 2002/3, 432-3.

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 30 12 0
Full Text Views 25 0 0
PDF Downloads 0 0 0