10 minute read
1.2. The University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science and Technology of Târgu Mureș
MIKÓ IMRE
Minority Rights Legal Services Assistance
Advertisement
Founded by RMDSZ/UDMR/DAHR
REPORT 2021
THE VIOLATION OF MINORITY RIGHTS AND THE ETHNIC DISCRIMINATION FACED BY THE HUNGARIAN COMMUNITY IN ROMANIA
1. VIOLATION OF LINGUISTIC RIGHTS ...........................................................................................7
1.1. Bilingualism in the public sphere...................................................................................................... 7 1.2. Bilingualism in the judiciary ............................................................................................................ 10 1.3. Problems with bilingual place name signs and vandalization of signs and monuments ........................................................................................................................... 12 1.4. Bilingual street signs........................................................................................................................... 14 1.5. Town hall inscriptions........................................................................................................................ 15 1.6. Safety measures.................................................................................................................................... 17 1.7. Driving test in Hungarian.................................................................................................................. 18 1.8. Discrimination in the healthcare system ...................................................................................... 19 1.9. Use of the Hungarian language in stores of multinational companies and financial institutions .......................................................................................................................... 22 1.10. Anti-Hungarian sentiments at the protests against measures to combat the epidemic.............................................................................................................................. 23
2. ETHNIC DISCRIMINATION..........................................................................................................25
2.1. Discrimination in the education system........................................................................................ 25 2.1.1. Teaching Romanian to minority pupils .............................................................................. 25 2.1.2. The University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science and Technology of Târgu Mureș/ Marosvásárhely.................................................................................................................................... 27 2.1.3. Attempts to close a Hungarian school resurface.............................................................. 29 2.2. Discrimination in administrative territorial disputes ............................................................... 30 2.3. Ethnic harassment of Hungarian nationals.................................................................................. 32
3. THE PERSECUTION OF HUNGARIAN SYMBOLS........................................................................34
3.1. Banning the Szekler flag .................................................................................................................... 34 3.2. Problems pertaining to the administrative flags featuring regional symbols .................... 35 3.3. The persecution of the Hungarian flag .......................................................................................... 36
4. HATE SPEECH AND DISINFORMATION TARGETING THE HUNGARIAN COMMUNITY .........38
4.1. Hate speech in politics........................................................................................................................ 38 4.1.1. Political leaders instigating against the Hungarian community ................................. 38 4.2. Hate speech on social media............................................................................................................. 42 4.3. Hate speech and violance in sports................................................................................................. 44
5. THE ILLEGAL APPROPRIATION OF THE MILITARY CEMETERY IN THE UZ VALLEY............47
6. THE RESTITUTION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY..............................................................................51
7. FAILURE OF THE MINORITY SAFEPACK INITIATIVE ...............................................................52
8. CONCLUSION ...............................................................................................................................53
1. VIOLATION OF LINGUISTIC RIGHTS
The use of minority languages in public institutions and the judicial system is still one of the top issues affecting persons belonging to national minorities. The existing legal framework is often incoherent, it does not provide adequate mechanisms for implementation and monitoring, and the updating of language policies has been consistently blocked in the past few years.
1.1. Bilingualism in the public sphere
The legislative framework on linguistic rights for national minorities is by no means coherent, various provisions are spread across a range of laws. Moreover, while laws are generally permissive, concrete norms aimed at implementation, monitoring and follow-up are often lacking. There is a general lack of accountability when it comes to enforcing legal provisions regarding minority rights, which needs to be addressed.
The implementation of minority-friendly language policies (even where required by law) is sporadic and generally depends on the goodwill of local administrations. There is an overall lack of accountability when it comes to enforcing legal provisions regarding minority rights, there being no clear pathway for a legal recourse in cases of non-compliance.
Since 2019, the legislation that applies in most aspects regarding the use of minority languages in and by local public institutions is the Administrative Code. This stipulates that in the administrative territorial units - be these a municipality or a county - in which a national minority constitutes at least 20% of the total population (according to the latest census), the authorities of the local public administration, public institutions under their jurisdiction, as well as the deconcentrated public services (local and regional offices/institutions belonging to the various ministries) must ensure the right of national minorities to use their mother tongue in their dealings with these institutions. On the level of municipalities, this is relevant in the case of 322 municipalities, while on a county level this is relevant in a total of 6 counties in Romania, where the Hungarian population exceeds the required threshold of 20%: Covasna, Harghita, Mureș, Bihor, Satu Mare and Sălaj.
In practice this means – among other things – the obligation to make public information available in Hungarian as well. However official documents and information on public interest are mostly available exclusively in Romanian.
Every year we look at the websites of institutions belonging to the local and county level public administrations in these six counties, as well as those of the deconcentrated public services, in order to assess their willingness to communicate public information in Hungarian as well. It is unfortunate that many of these websites still lack any information in Hungarian, with the rest ranging from a complete page in Hungarian (mostly in areas where Hungarians make up the absolute majority of the population) to partial or minimal Hungarian content.
One of the negative examples in 2021 is the website of the Mureş County Agency for Employment, where informations were published exclusively in Romanian, despite the large number of Hungarian citizens in the county. In addition to this, the in-service training courses organized by the same institute were held only in Romanian.
Updating language policies is also problematic, as the case of the much-disputed Administrative Code demonstrates. After being adopted by Parliament in 2018, and containing some favourable provisions regarding linguistic rights for minorities, it was contested at the Constitutional Court
It is unfortunate that many of the official websites completely lack any information in any minority language, including the site of Toplița/Maroshévíz Municipality
by several parties, as well as the President, with the court eventually deeming it unconstitutional on procedural grounds.
Taking into consideration another attempt of updating language policies, the Democratic Alliance of Hungarians in Romania (UDMR/RMDSZ) wanted to decrease the required 20% threshold to 10%, because they considered it too high, especially in the case of the scattered communities, where, according to the law, they cannot use their mother tongue. Besides introducing the abovedescribed provisions, they proposed the introduction of the concept of „significant”, instead of using exact quantities. They wanted to make language policies applicable in those regions where significant Hungarian communities live, however they met considerable opposition.
Moreover, there have been several endeavors by local authorities to make official documents, such as birth certificates, marriage certificates etc, available in Hungarian too. They met strong oppositions from the central government.
In 2019 the Administrative Code was adopted again in a modified form through a government ordinance, this version, however, significantly curtailed several positive provisions that ensured linguistic rights for national minorities. For instance, alternative thresholds have been scraped, meaning that language policies cannot be enforced in administrative units where the percentage of a minority does not reach 20%, which is a huge disadvantage for minorities living in large cities, where they might constitute a community of several thousand inhabitants and yet do not meet the required threshold.
Moreover, the names of streets, squares and parks are not required to be put up in a bilingual or multilingual format, not even in cases where minorities exceed the 20% threshold.
Furthermore, in the administrative territorial units, where a national minority constitutes at least 20% of the total population, decisions of normative nature have to be made public both in Romanian and in the language of the minority in case. However, in practice this measure is taken only in cases, when the leaders of the city/town belong to the Hungarian community. The biggest problem is that there are no monitoring institutions and no accountability when it comes to enforcing such provisions. In addition, in case of non-compliance, there is no sanctioning.
It is possible to use one’s mother tongue orally, if one requires a translator, but this is not possible in writing. People cannot comprehend the difficult legal expressions, therefore their basic rights to have fair access to justice is violated
In 2021 in the city of Târgu Mureș/Marosvásárhely, where the Hungarian minority constitutes more than 37% of the total population, as a result of renovations at the post office, indications and information in Hungarian disappeared, however, before this renovation all the posters and indications were bilingual. It is highly recommended and necessary to continue to put up the information inside the Post Office in Hungarian as well, as it was prior to the renovation. Our organization wrote a letter to the director of the Post Office regarding this problem. In their answer officials downplayed the issue. Even though they promised to solve the problem, this did not happen in practice.
Beyond the incoherent legislative framework and the systematic opposition to updating language policies, the linguistic rights of the Hungarian community are also endangered by individual attacks, fuelled by blatant anti-Hungarian attitudes. The Civic Association for Dignity in Europe, led by Dan Tanasă, a widely known anti-Hungarian nationalist provocateur, continues its vicious
fight against Hungarian signs and inscriptions (see chapters 1.3, 1.4). Other actions of the organization against the rights of the Hungarian community include many other lawsuits against local administrations that put up bilingual signs on the forefront of their town halls (see chapter 1.5), Szekler or Hungarian flags (see chapter 3). In many cases the justice system tacitly supports these nationalist endeavours and the decisions point to a double standard when it comes to the linguistic rights of the Hungarian community.
Observations and recommendations: The reason why linguistic rights are not applied in practice, although the obligation is stipulated in the national legislation, is due to the fact that there are currently no mechanisms that ensure their implementation. The Administrative Code does not provide the possibility to fine non-compliant local administrations and public institutions. Therefore, both the legislative and the executive bodies of the state should commit, first and foremost, to a more comprehensive approach toward ensuring the use of minority languages in relations with the public administration. To this end, linguistic rights should be set within a legislative framework that specifies concrete measures for implementation, while also ensuring that adequate sanctioning mechanisms are stipulated within the relevant laws on the implementation of linguistic rights for national minorities. Moreover, further positive measures need to be adopted in order to ensure the use of minority languages, most importantly by allocating the necessary human and financial resources needed for implementation. It is also relevant that, when monitoring the situation of the rights of national minorities, international organizations put particular emphasis on studies and data regarding implementation, considering that states often stop at codifying minority rights, including linguistic rights in laws, while doing little to ensure proper application.
1.2. Bilingualism in the judiciary
The use of minority languages within the Romanian judicial system continues to be problematic, which negatively affects the access to fair trial for citizens belonging to a national minority. This is an issue frequently raised by international organizations, most recently in the 2018 report by the Council of Europe on Romania in light of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages.
Currently, the regulations regarding legal procedures within the Romanian judicial system allow the use of their mother tongue for members of national minorities only in some cases, while even in those, the costs of translation and interpretation often have to be supported by the parties themselves.
For instance, the Civil Code states that both parties can use their mother tongue during the oral phase of a trial, however, the costs of interpretation have to be paid by the parties themselves. This rule does not apply to witnesses as well, meaning that in civil cases witnesses can only testify in Romanian. Moreover, according to the Penal Code, during the investigative phase, as well as during the trial itself, all information must be communicated to the accused party in their mother tongue, both orally and in a written form. In this case, the costs of the translation are supported by the state. However, if the defendant is found to be guilty, they will likely be required to reimburse the costs of translation and/or interpretation.
If the judge, the lawyers and both parties concerned are Hungarian, the existing laws allow for the possibility to conduct the entirety of a trial in Hungarian. Nevertheless, the decision whether or not to do so, is ultimately left to the discretion of the judge. All of this points to a chaotic, haphazard and incidental use of minority languages in legal proceedings in Romania, rather than a systematic approach.
Observations and recommendations: It would be ideal if the law on the use of the mother tongue was extended to civil actions also, because the right to a fair trial, the right to represent one’s legal interest in court, regardless of the severity of the issue, is very important. It is also essential to be able to represent one’s point of view in one’s mother tongue and for this reason the change in the legislation would be highly recommended.
