Abstract
When, in 2009, the Slovakian legislator amended the Act on the State Language for the second time, Slovakia’s Hungarian minority protested strongly and the Slovakian government asked the renowned so-called Venice Commission, an advisory body of the Council of Europe, for their opinion on the issue. This article illuminates the Venice Commission’s most significant findings. The authors want to point out that the Venice Commission, according to its statutory field of action, is focused on legal matters, while issues concerning the expediency of certain measures were only touched upon. This means that, based on its primary obligation to analyse questions of law and not questions of expediency, the opinion of the Venice Commission cannot – and should not – be unrestrictedly seen as a reference point with regard to other language regulations across Europe. The article thus issues additional explanations on the report focusing on questions of expediency, particularly against the achievements of modern minority protection measures visible (inter alia) in South Tyrol.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
