FACTORES INDIVIDUALES

Two other bodies that may enhance overall minority protection in Hungary will be mentioned in brief. Equal Treatment Authority (EAT) is a leading government body that investigates upon request or ex officio, with a view to assessing possible breaches of the principle of non-discrimination by both governmental and private institutions. In its work, this body considers 19 factors that constitute direct or indirect discrimination, stipulated as such in the Act on Equal Treatment and the Promotion of Equal Opportunities.⁶⁷⁹ The vast majority of complaints submitted to EAT originated from the Roma minority or organizations representing and defending the rights and interests of this community. Furthermore, the Commissioner for Fundamental Rights and his Deputy responsible for minorities monitor the implementation of recognized minority rights and investigate possible abuses or infringements. The

675 Ibid.

676 Council of Europe: European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), ECRI Report on Hungary (Fourth Monitoring Cycle), Adopted on 20 June 2008, 24 February 2009, para. 59.

677 Council of Europe, Fourth Report Submitted by Hungary…, supra note 657, p. 48.

678 Ibid, p. 43.

679 UN HRC, Report of the Independent Expert on Minority Issues: Mission to Hungary, supra note 652, paras. 14-16.

Commissioner may initiate proceedings before the Constitutional Court in cases of established unconstitutional practices in the field, submitted by public institutions or minority organizations.⁶⁸⁰

Some authors argue that system of minority protection in Hungary is, in many ways, interrelated with the country's commitment to the rights of Hungarians in neighboring countries.⁶⁸¹ In other words, the focus on collective rights for minorities was inspired mainly from the „plight‟ of Hungarians abroad and from the country‟s “strident effort to assure collective rights belonging to Hungarian minorities” in the respective countries where they reside.⁶⁸² This is a clear case in which the protection of kin-minorities served as an impetus for a country to pursue bilateral treaties with its neighbors.⁶⁸³ Some treaties were designed to regulate the overall bilateral relations between the countries and minority provisions were just one part, whereas other agreements were devoted solely to protection of kin-minorities. It is crucial that minorities are represented in almost every joint commission that supervises treaties compliance. Upon the recommendation of minority representatives of such commissions, for instance, a Croatian school and language department was been opened in the city of Pecs, kindergartens and mother tongue education for Romanian pupils are continuously subsidized by the Hungarian government etc.⁶⁸⁴

3.2. Minority Protection in Romania

Romania is the seventh most populous country in the European Union, and by far the largest of the countries assessed here. Due to its geographic location and specific history, several ethno-historical regions (Transylvania, Bukovina, Dobrudja), in whole or in part, were included in the territory of Romania, some of which had been the subject of past disputes between Romanians and neighboring peoples.⁶⁸⁵ Today, Romania is home to numerous national minorities that coexist peacefully with the

680 Council of Europe, Fourth Report Submitted by Hungary…, supra note 657, p. 46.

681 In the Treaty of Trianon (1920), the borders of Hungary were redrawn such that it lost 59 % of its territory and approximately 13 million people. Subsequently, some 3 million Hungarians became minorities in the new formed states of Czechoslovakia, Romania and Kingdom of Yugoslavia. Occasionally, the „diaspora engagement polit ics‟ with respect to the Hungarian communities in neighboring countries dominated Hungarian society. Note that in 1998 the Hungarian Parliament passed the so-called Status Law, which provided for “visa free entry, limited employment opportunities and access to educational institutions in Hungary available for ethnic Hungarians in neighboring states”. Furthermore, the new Fundamental Law of 2011 stipulated that Hungary “shall bear responsibility for the fate of Hungarians living beyond its borders”, with support for the establishment of

“their community self-government” and “the assertion of their individual and collective rights”. In the period that followed, some 600,000 non-resident Hungarians originating from the neighboring countries had acquired Hungarian citizenship, and a considerable portion of these new Hungarian citizens registered in the voters lists as non-resident voters. See: Szabolc Pogonyi, Transborder Kin-Minority as Symbolic Recourse in Hungary, Journal of Ethnopolitics and Minority Issue in Europe, Vol. 14, No.

3, 2015, pp. 73-98.

682 See: M. Geroe, T. Gump, Hungary and a New Paradigm for the Protection…, supra note 654, p. 687.

683 Daniel Nelson, Hungary and its Neighbors: Security and Ethnic Minorities, Nationalities Papers, Vol. 26, No. 2, 1998.

684 E. Lantschner, Bilateral Agreements and Their Implementation, supra note 632, pp. 211-214.

685 Irina Angelescu, New Eastern Perspectives? A Critical Analysis of Romania‟s Relations with Moldova, Ukraine and the Black Sea Region, in E. Tulmets (ed.), Identities and Solidarity in Foreign Policy: East Central Europe and the Eastern Neighborhood, Prague, 2012, pp. 140-159.

Romanian majority. Officially, the state recognizes 19 national minorities, with ethnic Hungarians and Roma being the largest among them.⁶⁸⁶

On the basis of the 2011 census, Hungarians number 1.22 million and make up 6.5% of Romania‟s total population, while the Roma number 621,573 or 3.3% of the population.⁶⁸⁷ Traditionally, the Hungarian stronghold in Romania is the region of Transylvania rather than the border areas with Hungary.⁶⁸⁸ In the counties Harghita (85%) and Covasna (74%) they form a large majority. Other counties with substantial Hungarian communities are Mures (38%), Satu Mare (35%), Bihor (25%), Salaj (24%) and Cluj (16%). Several cultural and regional Hungarian identities exists here, “first and foremost the Szekely, the Csango, whose relation with Hungarian minority is much disputed, and finally those Hungarians of Romania, who see themselves as Hungarians without having any significant ethnic (sub -) identities”.⁶⁸⁹ Szeklers are natives of Szekely land located in Transylvania, whilst Csangos are found in both Romania and Moldavia. The vast majority of Csangos today are monolingual Romanian speakers, while approximately 1.500 of them regularly use their traditional Hungarian-related vernacular.⁶⁹⁰

Ceausescu's regime in Romania lasted almost a quarter-century and was renowned for its repressions and human rights abuses. This legacy significantly shaped the country‟s international image following the collapse of communism, with scholars arguing that “Romania was rated among the worst countries in the world in terms of civil and political rights and as one of the least promising for democratic consolidation”.⁶⁹¹ Note that the pre-1989 Romanian legal system strictly adhered to the term

686 An interesting case is the situation of Aromanians (Vlachs) in Romania, which in other Balkan countries are recognized as a separate ethnic or linguistic minority distinct from ethnic Romanians. The Romanian government does not recognize this group's distinctiveness, considering them only as "a branch of the Romanian people, who set up relatively compact settlements, after being pushed in the south of the Danube by the nomadic tribes in the migration period". In that manner, on each occasion the government underscores its position that "no historical, linguistic or cultural elements allow for extension of the protection granted by the Framework Convention and the Charter for Regional or Minority Languages in respect to the Aromanian community". Council of Europe, Fourth Report Submitted by Romania Pursuant to Article 25, Paragraph 2 of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, Strasbourg, 1 February 2016, p. 15.

687 Ibid, p. 16. According to the 1992 census, 1,620,199 persons or 7.1 % of the population declared themselves to belong to the Hungarian minority. The next census conducted some nine years later in 2001 witnessed a significant decrease on the part of Hungarians, since only 1,431,807 persons were registered as Hungarians. Hence, if one compares these numbers, it comes out that Hungarian community was reduced by one third in less than 20 years. However, the Romanian government outlined that this was a general trend affecting the overall population of Romania, “which entails a similar trend as regards the number of persons belonging to national minorities”. A positive exception of this trend, with permanent population increase, is noted as regards the Roma community, mostly, due to high fertility rate among Roma women.

688 G. Edwards, Hungarian National Minorities: Recent Developments and Perspectives, supra note 653, p. 356.

689 Jakob Skovgaard, Towards „Consociationalism Light‟? The EU‟s, the Council of Europe‟s and the High Commissioner on National Minorities‟ Policies Regarding the Hungarian Minorities in Romania and Slovakia, Journal of Ethnopolitics and Minority Issues in Europe, Vol. 8, No. 2, 2009, p. 13.

690 Klara Sandor, National Feeling or Responsibility: The Case of the Csángó Language Revitalization, Multilingua, Journal of Cross-Cultural and Interlanguage Communication, Vol. 19, 1/2, 2000, pp. 141-168.

691 Melanie Ram, Romania: From Laggard to Leader?, in Bernd Rechel (ed.), Minority Rights in Central and Eastern Europe, Routledge, 2009, p. 180-194, p. 180. The violence between Romanians and Hungarians in the city of Tirgu Mares on 19-20 March 1990 resulted in 6 people killed and over 200 injured. With such a tragic outbreak of ethnically motivated clashes, Romania became "the first place in post-communist Europe where inter-ethnic differences led to deadly conflict". Furthermore,

"violence also emerged early on against the Roma in Romania, including attacks in the early 1990s that led to several deaths, the destruction of Roma houses, and entire Roma communities being driven from their hometowns".

“cohabiting nationalities” rather than the widely accepted 'national or ethnic minorities'.⁶⁹² After this position was "heavily contested", new legislation was adopted in the 1990s which dropped the former and introduced the latter. Likewise, the new Romanian Constitution proclaimed that persons belonging to national minorities have the right to preserve, express and develop their own ethnic, cultural and linguistic identity.⁶⁹³ Nevertheless, members of the Hungarian community resented the notion of „national state‟

expressed in the Constitution's fundamental values.⁶⁹⁴ Another area where government and the country's biggest minority found themselves diametrically opposed was the question of individual versus collective rights. On that issue, Edwards noted that “the Romanian Constitution follows closely the French concept of the unitary state, with the implication that the goal for society is homogeneity”.⁶⁹⁵

Since the very beginning of the democratic transition in Romania, national minorities and their organizations sought for Parliament to adopt general legislation on national minorities.⁶⁹⁶ After several consecutive proposals were put forward by both minority organizations and the government, the Senate in 2005 rejected the draft, "on the account of its introducing the right to cultural autonomy, i.e., organizing minorities in clusters of associated persons and so recognizing for them collective rights".⁶⁹⁷ However, the national minorities continued to agitate for change, producing numerous recommendations on the need for amendments to the Draft Law on the Status of National Minorities to be adopted without delay.

The ECRI urged the Romanian authorities to reconsider those provisions of the draft law which, according to their assessment, “might impinge on the right of members of national/ethnic minorities to choose their political representatives”.⁶⁹⁸ Nevertheless, the revised version of the Draft Law "is still underway within the Chamber of Deputies".⁶⁹⁹ Supposedly, the „regionalization process‟ sought by ethnic Hungarians serves as a ground for these endless postponements of the Draft Law‟s adoption. Yet, the Democratic Union of Hungarians in Romania (UDMR) persists in its efforts to negotiate a special status of Szekely land, with an aim "to bring all Hungarians together in one historical region where they would form the majority and decide on their destiny".⁷⁰⁰

692 Raisa-Maria Vaduva, The Regime of Minorities‟ Rights in Post-Communist Romania, Revue des Sciences Politiques, No. 40, 2013, pp. 39-45, p. 40.

693 See: M. Geroe, T. Gump, Hungary and a New Paradigm…, supra note 654, p. 690.

694 Sergiu Constantin, Linguistic Policy and National Minorities in Romania, Novel SL - Revista de Sociolingüistica, 2004, p.

12.

695 G. Edwards, Hungarian National Minorities: Recent…, supra note 653, p. 357.

696 See: K. Gal, The Council of Europe Framework…, supra note 645, p. 17.

697 Gabriel Andreescu, The Draft Law on the Status of National Minorities versus the Real Challenges of the System for the Protection of Minorities, Romanian Journal of Society and Politics, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2011, pp, 47-64, p. 51.

698 Council of Europe: European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), ECRI Report on Romania (fourth monitoring cycle, 3 June 2014, para. 16.

699 Council of Europe, Fourth Report Submitted by Romania…, supra note 686, p. 11.

700 G. Andreescu, The Draft Law on the Status…, supra note 697, p. 48.