GUIDELINES ON THE USE OF MINORITY LANGUAGES IN THE BROADCAST MEDIA

I. GENERAL PRINCIPLES
1. Freedom of Expression
The freedom of expression of every person, including persons belonging to national minorities, includes the right to receive, seek and impart information and ideas in a language and media of their choice without interference and regardless of frontiers.
The exercise of this freedom may be subject only to such limitations as are compatible with international law.
2. Cultural and Linguistic Diversity
States should guarantee the freedom of choice by creating an environment in which a variety of ideas and information can flourish as communicated in various languages.
3. Protection of Identity
All persons, including persons belonging to national minorities, have the right to maintain and develop their identity, including through the use of their language(s), in and through the broadcast media.
4. Equality and Non-Discrimination
All persons, including persons belonging to national minorities, have the right to enjoy the freedom of expression and to maintain and develop their identity in and through the broadcast media in conditions of equality and without discrimination. States should take special and concrete measures, where necessary, to ensure that persons belonging to national minorities enjoy effective equality with regard to the use of their language in the broadcast media.
II. POLICY
5. States should develop policy to address the use of minority language(s) in the broadcast media. Policy should be based on an ascertainment of the needs of persons belonging to national minorities to maintain and develop their identities.
In the development and application of such policy, persons belonging to national minorities should enjoy effective participation, including in consultative processes and representation in relevant institutions and bodies.
6. Independent regulatory bodies should be responsible for the implementation and enforcement of State policy. Such bodies should be established and should function in a transparent manner.
7. State policy should support public service broadcasting which provides a wide and balanced range of informational, educational, cultural and entertainment programming of high quality in order, inter alia, to meet the needs of persons belonging to national minorities. States should maintain and, where necessary, establish the financial, technical and other conditions for public service broadcasters to fulfil their mandates in this field.
8. State policy should facilitate the establishment and maintenance by persons belonging to national minorities of broadcast media in their own language.
III REGULATION
9. Permissibility of Regulation
States may regulate the broadcast media for the protection and promotion of the freedom of expression, cultural and linguistic diversity, the maintenance and development of cultural identity, and for the respect of the rights or reputations of others. Such regulation, including licensing, must be prescribed by law, based on objective and non-discriminatory criteria and shall not aim to restrict or have the effect of restricting broadcasting in minority languages.
10. Promotion of Languages
In regulating the use of language in the broadcast media, States may promote the use of selected languages. Measures to promote one or more language(s) should not restrict the use of other languages. States may not prohibit the use of any language in the broadcast media. Measures to promote any language in broadcast media should not impair the enjoyment of the rights of persons belonging to national minorities.
11. Proportionality of Regulation
Any regulation, whether prescriptive or proscriptive, must pursue a legitimate aim and be proportionate to that aim. When assessing the proportionality of any regulation, specific factors concerning the nature of the media and wider social environment should be considered. Such factors include:
- The nature and objectives of the measure, including its potential to contribute to the quality and balance of programming, in pursuit of the protection and promotion of freedom of expression, cultural and linguistic diversity, and the maintenance and development of cultural identity.
- The existing political, social and religious context, including cultural and linguistic diversity, structures of governance, and regional characteristics.
- The number, variety, geographical reach, character, function and languages of available broadcasting services – whether public, private or foreign – at all levels (national, regional and local). The financial costs to the audience of the various services, technical possibilities for reception and the quantity as well as the quality of broadcasting, both in terms of the scheduling of slots and the type of programming, are all relevant considerations.
- The rights, needs, expressed desires and nature of the audience(s) affected, including their numerical size and geographical concentration, at each level (national, regional and local).
12. Translation Restrictions
Minority language broadcasting should not be subject to the imposition of undue or disproportionate requirements for translation, dubbing, post-synchronisation or subtitling.
13. Transfrontier Broadcasting
The free reception of transfrontier broadcasts, whether direct or by means of retransmission or rebroadcasting, shall not be prohibited on the basis of language.
The availability of foreign broadcasting in a minority language does not negate the State’s obligation to facilitate domestically produced broadcasting in that language nor does it justify a reduction of the broadcast time in that language.
IV. PROMOTION OF MINORITY LANGUAGES
14. State Support
The State should support broadcasting in minority languages. This may be achieved through, inter alia, provision of access to broadcasting, subsidies and capacity building for minority language broadcasting.
15. Access to Broadcasting
States should provide meaningful access to minority language broadcasting through, inter alia, the allocation of frequencies, establishment and support of broadcasters, and program scheduling. In this regard, account should be taken of the numerical size, geographical concentration, and location of persons belonging to national minorities together with their needs and interests.
The availability of minority language broadcasting at regional or local level does not justify the exclusion of minority language programming in nation-wide broadcasting, including for dispersed minorities.
A. Frequencies
- When awarding licenses, States should consider providing frequencies for minority language broadcasting in whole or in part.
- States should consider providing “open channels” – i.e. programme transmission facilities, which use the same frequency, shared by a number of linguistic groups within the service area – where there are technical limitations on the number of frequencies available and/or groups that do not have sufficient resources to sustain their own services.
B. Broadcasters
- States should prescribe appropriate requirements for State or public service broadcasters with regard to the provision of programming in minority languages.
- States should also consider creating favourable conditions (financial or otherwise) to encourage private minority language broadcasting. This may be achieved through the allocation of licenses, including calls for tender or in response to a proposal from an applicant. States may also choose to exempt minority language broadcasters from competition legislation or create special regimes to relieve them of certain administrative burdens.
- Where there is no private minority language broadcasting, States should actively assist its establishment, as necessary.
C. Programming
States should ensure that the amount of time allocated and the scheduling of minority language broadcasting should reflect the numerical size and concentration of the national minority and be appropriate to their needs and interests. Consideration must also be given to the minimum amount of time and appropriate scheduling needed for small minorities to have meaningful access to broadcast media in their language. These aims may be achieved through licensing, including through stipulation of lengths and periods of minority language broadcasting.
16. Public Funding
States should consider providing financial support for minority language broadcasting. This can be achieved through direct grants, favourable financing/tax regimes, and exemption from certain fees payable on award or alteration of a license. To ensure effective equality, minority language broadcasters in numerically smaller communities may require funds or facilities disproportionate to their size as a percentage of available resources.
States should encourage and facilitate, including through the provision of financial assistance, the production and distribution of audio and audiovisual works in minority languages.
17. Capacity Building
States should contribute to the building of the capacity of minority language broadcasting. This may be done through technical support to distribute minority language productions both domestically and abroad and to facilitate transfrontier broadcasting in minority languages. In addition, States should consider supporting the education and training of personnel for minority language broadcasting.

ANNEX
This annex provides a brief overview of the principal international standards upon which the Guidelines are based.
I. General Principles
1. The right to freedom of expression is a cornerstone of international human rights protection. It comprises the right to receive and impart information and ideas by everyone without interference from public authority and regardless of frontiers. It is enshrined in Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR). For example, paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 19 of the ICCPR state:
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice. 3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary: (a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others; (b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.
The U.N. Human Rights Committee, established to supervise implementation of the ICCPR, has clarified in its General Comment 10 of 1983 that the right to freedom of expression enshrined in Article 19 includes not only the freedom to seek and receive information and ideas of all kinds, but also in whatever medium. With regard to the ECHR, the European Court of Human Rights in the cases of Oberschlick v. Austria (23 May 1991, Case 6/1990/197/257, para. 57) and Autronic AG v. Switzerland (24 April 1990, Case 14/1988/158/214, para. 47) has held that Article 10 protects not only the substance of the ideas and information expressed, but also the form in which they are conveyed. Within the CSCE/OSCE, the 1990 Document of the Copenhagen Meeting of the Conference on the Human Dimension (Copenhagen Document, para. 9.1) and the 1991 Document of the Cracow Symposium on the Cultural Heritage of the CSCE Participating States (Cracow Document, para. 6.1) reiterate the right to freedom of expression. According to the Copenhagen Document, persons belonging to national minorities have the right to use their mother tongue in private and in public (para. 32.1) as well as the right to disseminate, have access to, and exchange information in their mother tongue (para. 32.5).
In Handyside v. United Kingdom (7 December 1976, Series A, No. 24, para. 49), the European Court of Human Rights has provided the following further interpretation of Article 10 of the ECHR: “Freedom of expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of [a democratic] society, one of the basic conditions for its progress and for the development of every man. [...] This means, amongst other things, that every ‘formality’, ‘condition’, ‘restriction’ or ‘penalty’ imposed in this sphere must be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued.”
2. The safeguarding and promotion of pluralism in the broadcast media, reflecting cultural and linguistic diversity, is a necessary component of the freedom of expression. According to paragraph 2 of the UNESCO Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity, policies ensuring cultural pluralism give expression to the reality of cultural diversity. In paragraph 6, the Declaration notes that cultural diversity is guaranteed by, inter alia, the freedom of expression, media pluralism and multilingualism. In the Case of Informationsverein Lentia and Others v. Austria (24 November 1999, Case 36/1992/381/455-459), the European Court of Human Rights has emphasised the importance of pluralism for freedom of expression. In that case, the Court specified (in para. 38) that the public’s entitlement to receive information and ideas of general interest “cannot be successfully accomplished unless it is grounded in the principle of pluralism, of which the State is the ultimate guarantor. This observation is especially valid in relation to audio-visual media, whose programmes are often broadcast very widely.” In the same vein, Article 9(4) of the Council of Europe’s Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (Framework Convention) requires States Parties to “adopt adequate measures in order to facilitate access to the media for persons belonging to national minorities and in order to promote tolerance and permit cultural pluralism.”
Moreover, Article 10 of the European Convention on Transfrontier Television requires States Parties to endeavor to avoid endangering media pluralism. The Declaration on the Freedom of Expression and Information, adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe in 1982, in Article II(d) stipulates the objective to achieve “the existence of a wide variety of independent and autonomous media, permitting the reflection of diversity of ideas and opinions.” The OSCE Participating States, in paragraph 6.2 of the Cracow Document, have expressed their conviction that a diversity of private-sector broadcasters “helps ensure pluralism and the freedom of artistic and cultural expression.”
3. The duty of the State to protect the linguistic (and other) identity of persons belonging to national minorities is entrenched in a number of international instruments and in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. Article 1 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities (U.N. Declaration on Minorities) is particularly relevant:
1. States shall protect the existence and the national or ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic identity of minorities within their respective territories and shall encourage conditions for the promotion of that identity.
2. States shall adopt appropriate legislative and other measures to achieve those ends.
Article 4(2) further stipulates that “States shall take measures to create favourable conditions to enable persons belonging to minorities to express their characteristics and to develop their culture, language, religion, traditions and customs, except where specific practices are in violation of national law and contrary to international standards.” Article 17(a) of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child requires States Parties to “encourage the mass media to disseminate information and material” in accordance with the Convention’s educational goals, including the development of respect for the child’s own cultural identity and language as prescribed in Article 29. The Framework Convention echoes these provisions. In its Preamble, the Framework Convention states that a pluralist and genuinely democratic society should not only respect the linguistic identity of each person belonging to a national minority, but should “also create appropriate conditions enabling them to express, preserve and develop this identity.” Article 5(1) of the same instrument explicitly places an obligation on States Parties to promote the conditions necessary for persons belonging to national minorities “to preserve the essential elements of their identity,” including their language. OSCE Participating States are committed to protect, inter alia, the linguistic identities of persons belonging to national minorities according to the Concluding Document of the 1989 Follow-up Meeting 1986-1989 in Vienna (Vienna Document, para. 19), the Copenhagen Document (paras. 32 and 33), and the 1991 Report of the CSCE Meeting of Experts on National Minorities in Geneva (Geneva Document, sections III and VII).
4. The prohibition of discrimination on the basis of, inter alia, language, is a bedrock principle of international human rights law. International instruments that prohibit discrimination on the basis of language include: the UDHR (Article 2); the ICCPR (Articles 2 and 26); the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (Article 2); the U.N. Declaration on Minorities (Article 2); the ECHR (Article 14 and Article 1 of Protocol 12); and The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (Article 21). Among OSCE documents, analogous commitments appear in the 1975 Helsinki Final Act (Principle VII), the Vienna Document (para. 13.7), and the Copenhagen Document (para. 5.9).
The principle of non-discrimination includes a duty to treat differently persons whose situations are different, so that effective equality can be achieved. Paragraph 19 of the Vienna Document, for example, commits OSCE Participating States to ensure the “full equality” of persons belonging to national minorities. If difference in treatment is to be non-discriminatory, it must be based on reasonable and objective criteria, have a legitimate aim, and there must be a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the differential treatment and the aim pursued. This principle is discussed by the UN Human Rights Committee in its General Comment 18 on Non-Discrimination of 1989 and by the European Court of Human Rights specifically in connection with linguistic rights in its seminal decision in the Belgian Linguistics Case (judgment of 23 July 1968, 1 EHRR 252).
This principle includes the possible use of special and concrete measures, which are aimed at accelerating and achieving de facto equality for persons belonging to national minorities. This concept appears explicitly in Articles 1(4) and 2 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and Articles 3 and 4 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women. In paragraph 31 of the Copenhagen Document, OSCE Participating States committed to adopt, “where necessary, special measures for the purpose of ensuring to persons belonging to national minorities full equality with the other citizens in the exercise and enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.” Article 4(1) of the U.N. Declaration on Minorities similarly stipulates that States “shall take measures where required to ensure that persons belonging to minorities may exercise fully and effectively all their human rights and fundamental freedoms without any discrimination and in full equality before the law.” Article 4(2) of the Framework Convention also requires States Parties to adopt adequate measures in order to promote full and effective equality for persons belonging to national minorities, in respect of which due account shall be taken of their specific conditions. Article 7(2) of the European Charter for Regional or Minority Languages (European Language Charter) explicitly states that measures aimed at promoting the equality of minority languages should not be considered discriminatory.
II. Policy
5. OSCE Participating States have undertaken to protect and create conditions for the promotion of linguistic and other aspects of the identity of national minorities on their territory (Copenhagen Document, para. 33). The Framework Convention prescribes essentially the same obligation in Article 4(2). Article 9(4) of the Framework Convention also requires States Parties to adopt “adequate measures in order to facilitate access to the media for persons belonging to national minorities and in order to promote tolerance and permit cultural pluralism.” Article 7(1) of the European Language Charter requires that States Parties “base their policies, legislation and practice” on, inter alia, the “need for resolute action to promote regional and minority languages in order to safeguard them,” and “the facilitation and/or encouragement of the use of regional or minority languages, in speech […] in public and private life.” In Article 7(3), the Parties undertake to encourage the mass media to promote “mutual understanding between all the linguistic groups of the country.” The Convention on the Rights of the Child, in Article 17(d), stipulates that “States Parties shall encourage the mass media to have particular regard to the linguistic needs of the child who belongs to a minority group or who is indigenous.”
OSCE Participating States have undertaken to create conditions for persons belonging to national minorities to have equal opportunity to be effectively involved in the public life, economic activities, and building of their societies (Principle IV of the Geneva Document). Article 15 of the Framework Convention states that “The Parties shall create the conditions necessary for the effective participation of persons belonging to national minorities in cultural, social and economic life and in public affairs, in particular those affecting them.” In paragraph 33 of the Copenhagen Document, the OSCE Participating States undertake, when adopting measures to, inter alia, protect the linguistic identity of national minorities, conducting “due consultations, including contacts with organizations or associations of such minorities, in accordance with the decision-making procedures of each State.” In Principle III of the Geneva Document, the OSCE Participating States recognize that appropriate democratic participation of persons belonging to national minorities or their representatives in decision-making or consultative bodies constitutes an important element of effective participation in public affairs. Article 11(3) of the European Language Charter requires Parties to ensure that the interests of minority language users are represented or taken into account specifically within broadcast media regulatory bodies.
6. The need for independent regulatory bodies derives from the principles of democracy and good governance and from international best practices. The Council of Europe’s Committee of Minister’s Recommendation No. 99(1) on Measures to Promote Media Pluralism, notes that “national bodies should pay attention to pluralism in the discharge of their mission.” More specifically, the Oslo Recommendations regarding the Linguistic Rights of National Minorities states in Recommendation 10 that public media bodies “overseeing the content and orientation of programming should be independent and should include persons belonging to national minorities serving in their independent capacity.”
7. In Recommendation No. R (96) 10 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to Members States on the Guarantee of the Independence of Public Service Broadcasting, the Committee of Ministers emphasises the role of public service broadcasting as an essential factor of pluralistic communication which is accessible to everyone at both national and regional levels, by providing a basic comprehensive programme service comprising information, education, culture and entertainment. This has been recognized by the European Court of Human Rights in the Lentia Case (para. 33). The European Language Charter explicitly contemplates in Article 11(1) broadcasters carrying out “a public service mission” to address the needs of users of minority languages. The Council of Europe’s Committee of Minister’s Recommendation (2003)9 on Measures to Promote the Democratic and Social Contribution of Digital Broadcasting stresses that the role of public service broadcasters in a democratic society is to support “the values underlying the political, legal and social structures of democratic societies, and in particular respect for human rights, culture and political pluralism.”
According to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe “while public service broadcasters have a special commitment to promote a culture of tolerance and understanding, the broadcast media as a whole are a potent force for creating an atmosphere in which intolerance can be challenged” (Appendix to Recommendation No. R (97) 21, item 5). In Recommendation No. R (99) 14 the Committee of Ministers points to the synergetic effects of co-operation between public authorities and the private sector for the benefit of users of new communication and information services. Encouragement of minority language broadcasting by the private media is possible through a variety of means, including licensing. The Committee of Ministers recommends to Member States that “national bodies responsible for awarding licenses to private broadcasters should pay particular attention to the promotion of media pluralism in the discharge of their mission.” (Appendix to Recommendation No. R (99) 14, item I). The OSCE Geneva Document calls for specific support by the State to the electronic mass media by providing information so that the latter takes into account in their programmes, inter alia, the linguistic identity of national minorities.
8. The possibility for persons belonging to minorities to establish and maintain broadcast media in their own language is guaranteed by Article 9(3) of the Framework Convention. Article 11 of the European Language Charter specifies options which States may pursue in order to realize such possibilities for linguistic minorities.
III. Regulation
9. Regulation of the broadcast media must be in conformity with the general principles enumerated in these Guidelines, including freedom of expression, the protection of cultural and linguistic diversity through minority language broadcasting, and the protection of linguistic identity, without discrimination. Regulations that interfere with the right to freedom of expression are subject to the requirements of Article 19(3) of the ICCPR and Article 10(2) of the ECHR, the latter of which stipulates in part that:
No restrictions shall be placed on the exercise of these rights other than such as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
In accordance with Article 10(1) of the ECHR, licensing constitutes a possible avenue for media regulation. Article 9(2) of the Framework Convention states that with regard to freedom of expression and access by national minorities to the media, States Parties may require “licensing, without discrimination and based on objective criteria, of sound radio and television broadcasting, or cinema enterprises.” Within the OSCE, in both the Cracow Document (para. 6.1) and the report of the Geneva Document (para. VII), Participating States have committed to regulating the broadcast media only as “prescribed by law and consistent with international standards.”
10. The OSCE Participating States recognise the right of persons belonging to national minorities to “disseminate, have access to and exchange information in their mother tongue” (Vienna Document, para. 45; Copenhagen Document, para. 32.5). This right should not be impaired through licensing or other types of regulation. The European Commission for Human Rights in its decision on admissibility in the Case of Verein Alternatives Lokalradio Bern v. Switzerland (16 October 1986, App. No. 10746/84), citing the Handyside judgment, stated that a licensing system must respect the requirements of pluralism, tolerance and broadmindedness. The Commission explained that this includes the language of the broadcast:
[Refusal to grant a broadcasting license may raise a problem under Article 10, in conjunction with Article 14 of the [European] Convention in specific circumstances. Such a problem would arise, for example, if the refusal to grant a license resulted directly in a considerable proportion of the inhabitants of the area concerned being deprived of broadcasts in their mother tongue.
With regard to private media, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe in paragraph 17(vi) of Recommendation 1589 (2003) on Freedom of Expression in the Media in Europe has urged Member States “to abolish restrictions on the establishment and functioning of private media broadcasting in minority languages.”
11. With regard to the proportionality of any regulation, the European Court of Human Rights has consistently found Article 10 of the ECHR to require that broadcasting regulations pursue a legitimate aim and be proportionate to that aim.
In paragraph 32 of the Lentia Case, the Court enumerated the following considerations, other than technical, for appropriate licensing: “the nature and objectives of a proposed station, its potential audience at national, regional or local level, the rights and needs of the specific audience and the obligations derived from international legal instruments.” The Lentia Case also clarifies that the maintenance of public monopolies where no alternatives for the imparting or reception of information exist, other than through the national station (or to a limited extent through a local cable station), fall outside the parameters of what is proportional and permissible (para. 39). In its judgment on the case of Tele 1 Privatfernsehgesellschaft MBH v. Austria (21 September 2000, App. No. 32240/96, para. 40), the Court found that the size of the target audience and their ease of access to alternative broadcasts (e.g., through cable television) are relevant factors in determining the proportionality of restrictions. In the Verein Alternatives Case, the Commission specified that political circumstances – “such as cultural and linguistic pluralism, balance between lowland and mountain regions and a balanced federalist policy” – may also be taken into account when assessing proportionality of regulation.
12. The regulation of the translation, dubbing, post-synchronisation and subtitling of audiovisual works in minority languages and into minority languages should be consistent with the right to freedom of expression, contribute to the fulfilment of international obligations regarding minority protection as well as the promotion of understanding, tolerance and friendship between persons belonging to national minorities and the majority population of the State. Regulations should not interfere with the broadcasting or the receipt of broadcasts in minority languages. Article 12 of the European Language Charter requires States to foster access to works produced in regional or minority languages by aiding and developing translation, dubbing, post-synchronisation and subtitling, and, if necessary, by creating, promoting and financing translation and terminological research services.
13. The ICCPR and ECHR guarantee the freedom of expression “regardless of frontiers”. The free reception of transfrontier broadcasting is an aspect of the right of persons belonging to national minorities to establish and maintain free and peaceful contacts across frontiers particularly with those whom they share an ethnic, cultural, linguistic or religious identity, or common cultural heritage, as stipulated in Article 17 of the Framework Convention and, in similar terms, in paragraph 32.4 of the Copenhagen Document.
Article 4 of the European Convention on Transfrontier Television states, in part, that the Parties shall “guarantee freedom of reception and shall not restrict the retransmission on their territories of programme services which comply with the terms of this convention.” In addition, Article 11(2) of the European Language Charter, while permitting regulation, states that “The Parties undertake to guarantee freedom of direct reception of radio and television broadcasts from neighbouring countries in a language used in identical or similar form to a regional or minority language, and not to oppose the retransmission of radio and television broadcasts from neighbouring countries in such a language.”
Finally, the principle that transfrontier broadcasting does not relieve States of their obligation to facilitate domestically produced broadcasting is derived from Article 9 of the Framework Convention. According to the Advisory Committee under the Framework Convention, “the availability of […] programmes from neighbouring states does not obviate the necessity for ensuring programming on domestic issues concerning national minorities and programming in minority languages” (Opinion on Albania, para. 50). More specifically, Recommendation 11 of the Oslo Recommendations regarding the Linguistic Rights of National Minorities states that “Access to media originating from abroad shall not be unduly restricted. Such access should not justify a diminution of broadcast time allocated to the minority in the publicly funded media of the State of residence of the minorities concerned.”
IV. Promotion of Minority Languages
14.The principle that States should support broadcasting in minority languages is reflected in a variety of international instruments. The U.N. Declaration on Minorities states in Article 4 that “States shall take measures where required” to ensure that persons belonging to national minorities effectively exercise their human rights. The Framework Convention states in Article 6(1) that Parties shall “promote mutual respect and understanding and co-operation” among persons, “irrespective of linguistic identity”, through, inter alia, the media. The European Language Charter states in Article 7(1)(c) that the Parties agree on “the need for resolute action to promote regional or minority languages in order to safeguard them.” Under Article 10 of the European Convention on Transfrontier Television, States Parties “undertake to look together for the most appropriate instruments and procedures to support, without discrimination between broadcasters, the activity and development of European production, particularly in countries with a low audiovisual production capacity or “restricted language area.” More specifically, Article 11(1)(a, b and c) of the European Language Charter, requires the State to create, encourage or facilitate radio or television channels or programming in regional or minority languages. Moreover, Article 11(d) of the European Language Charter requires States to encourage and/or facilitate the production and distribution of audio and audiovisual works in regional or minority languages.
Likewise, international instruments point explicitly to the need to provide meaningful access to minority language broadcasting. The Framework Convention, for example, provides in Article 9(4) that, inter alia, “in the framework of their legal systems, the Parties shall adopt adequate measures in order to facilitate access to the media for persons belonging to national minorities.” Article 9(1) forbids discrimination against persons belonging to national minorities in their access to the media. The European Language Charter obliges States Parties in Article 12(1)(a) to “foster the different means of access to works produced in [regional or minority] languages.”
15. The requirements that States, when providing meaningful access to minority language broadcasting, take into account the numerical size, concentration and distribution as well as needs and interests of persons belonging to national minorities, are intended to assist States in implementing effective equality of access. The European Language Charter, in Article 11(1), states that policy toward the media should be designed, inter alia, “according to the situation of each language”. Recommendation 9 of the Oslo Recommendations regarding the Linguistic Rights of National Minorities states more specifically that broadcast time and quality should be “commensurate with the numerical size and concentration of the national minority and appropriate to its situation and needs.” In facilitating access to the media for persons belonging to national minorities, the Framework Convention requires States Parties to permit cultural pluralism and to promote tolerance (Article 9(4)) as well as to promote mutual respect and understanding and co-operation among all persons (Article 6(1)). Article 7(1)(e) of the European Language Charter highlights the importance of the maintenance of links, including through broadcasting, between groups using a regional or minority language and other groups in the State employing a language used in identical or similar form, as well as the establishment of cultural relations with other groups in the State using different languages. The same instrument also underlines the importance of the provision of facilities enabling non-speakers of a regional or minority language living in the area where it is used to learn it if they so desire (subpara. g). Accordingly, an appropriate level of minority language broadcasting should be encouraged at the nationwide level. This is particularly relevant for dispersed minorities.
Subparts A, B and C of this section of the Guidelines present a non-exhaustive list of recommended ways that States may promote minority languages in the broadcast media. They reflect international best practices as well as the principles set out in the Guidelines. The special responsibility to enable the existence of public service broadcasting is highlighted. The Central European Initiative’s Instrument for the Protection of Minorities states in Article 19, inter alia, that “In [the] case of TV and radio in public ownership, the States will assure, whenever appropriate and possible, that persons belonging to national minorities have the right of free access to such media including the production of such programmes in their own language.” In the framework of the EU, the Protocol on the System of Public Broadcasting in the Member States to the Treaty of Amsterdam establishes that “the system of public broadcasting in the Member States is directly related to the democratic, social and cultural needs of each society and to the need to preserve media pluralism”. Directives of the European Council similarly note the importance of this principle.
16. The call for States to consider providing financial support for minority language broadcasting is generally derived from the requirements of effective equality and access to the broadcast media for persons belonging to national minorities. Article 19 of the Central European Initiative’s Instrument for the Protection of Minority Rights stipulates, inter alia, that “States guarantee the right of persons belonging to a national minority to avail themselves of the media in their own language, in conformity with relevant State regulations and with possible financial assistance.” The principle of non-discrimination requires that minority language broadcasters receive an equitable proportion of State support for the media. Article 11(f) of the European Language Charter stipulates that States must either “cover the additional costs of those media which use regional or minority languages, wherever the law provides for financial assistance in general for the media,” or “apply existing measures for financial assistance also to audiovisual production in the regional or minority languages.”
Regarding the production and distribution of audiovisual works in minority languages, Article 11(d) of the European Language Charter obliges States Parties to “encourage and/or facilitate the production and distribution of audio and audiovisual works in the regional or minority languages.” In Recommendation No. R (93) 5 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, entitled Containing Principles Aimed at Promoting the Distribution and Broadcasting of Audiovisual Works Originated in Countries or Regions with a Low Audiovisual Output or a Limited Geographic or Linguistic Coverage on the European Television Markets, the Committee expresses the view that the freedoms enshrined in Article 10 of the ECHR “can be exercised meaningfully by audiovisual producers in countries and regions with a low audiovisual output or a limited geographic or linguistic coverage by enabling them to have an effective access to the European television markets for the distribution of their works”.
17. The requirement to build the capacity of minority language broadcasting is implicit in the requirements of many of the instruments cited above. Article 11(g) of the European Language Charter explicitly requires States Parties “to support the training of journalists and other staff for media using regional or minority languages.”