THE JUNE 2012 OPINION OF THE VENICE COMMISSION OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE ON THE ACT ON THE RIGHTS OF NATIONALITIES OF HUNGARY. PRESENTATION AND ASSESSMENT

The paper undertakes an analysis of the June 2012 Opinion of the European Commission for Democracy through Law (the Venice Commission) of the Council of Europe on the Hungarian Act on the Rights of Nationalities of Hungary, adopted in December 2011. The paper approaches this task having as a reference point the European standards on minority protection, but also the concrete needs of the Romanian minority of Hungary in preserving and developing its cultural identity, effort which might be directly affected by the Act. The paper shows that the Opinion of the Venice Commission acknowledges not only the positive aspects set forth by the Act, but also certain important shortcomings that have to be redressed by further amending the Act. Among these, inter alia, one may identify the following: the fact that, being a “cardinal” law, it is quite difficult to amend it; the fact that it sometimes includes an excessively detailed regulation; that it changes the terminology from “national minority” to “nationality”, with important consequences on the manner of projecting the Hungarian interests in connection with the Hungarian minorities abroad (as well as the fact that the Act consecrates the controversial concept of “collective rights”); it includes a narrow definition of the “nationality”, thus excluding the new minorities and creating some difficulties for the Roma, who are not (by tradition) strictly linked to territory; it does not include sufficient guarantees as to the accuracy of ethnic data collection, especially by censuses; it does not provide for concrete measures to ensure the verification of the mother tongue knowledge by minority electors and candidates for self-governments, thus living place for the perpetuation of the phenomenon of the so-called “ethno-business”; the regulation of education for minorities has a degree of uncertainty with regard to the stability and continuity of minority education and might have a negative impact on the parents’ choice as to their children education; it does not address in an appropriate manner the problem of financing of the media for national minorities, and so on.