- January 16, 2014
- 352
On 14th January, a significant event took place in the European Parliament
On 14th January this year, an article entitled “Lietuvos lenkės atkirtis V.Tomaševskiui: gana!”, written by a certain Renata, appeared on lrytas.lt. As my name is also Renata, this fact forced me to write a message and sign it with both my name and surname, because the author – who claims to be Polish, and writes such things – should not fear to sign letters properly, with both her name and surname.
On the one hand acceptance of the Lithuanian authorities’ moves, on the other – hiding behind an anonymous message. The question which comes in a way naturally, taking into account the letter’s incongruity, is whether it has really been written by a Polish woman named Renata, or by certain organizations.
However, I agree with my namesake when it comes to one thing – the strife has already been too long. I would like to point to the fact that we are the minority, and the majority should always stand for any kind of minority. The basic rule of democracy is that a majority rules respecting the rights of minorities, but, paradoxically, our rights are diminishing.
What is interesting is that, joining international structures such as the EU, or NATO (where the defense of the most basic human rights, including the minority rights, is crucial), we were assured that our situation would improve. The very fact of becoming a member of the EU, as well as the first elections with ballot papers in our mother tongue, made us hopeful the EU would guarantee our basic rights concerning our language and national identity.
But what has happened instead? Retrogression, and a very clear one. Not only is the right to have ballot papers in Polish gone, but also judicial sentences for signboards with street names on domestic premises are pronounced. All of this happens against the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (FCNM). Article 10 of the Framework Convention reads as follows: “2. In areas inhabited by persons belonging to national minorities traditionally or in substantial numbers, if those persons so request and where such a request corresponds to a real need, the Parties shall endeavour to ensure, as far as possible, the conditions which would make it possible to use the minority language in relations between those persons and the administrative authorities”. According to article 11: “3. In areas traditionally inhabited by substantial numbers of persons belonging to a national minority, the Parties shall endeavour (…) to display traditional local names, street names and other topographical indications intended for the public also in the minority language when there is a sufficient demand for such indications”.
According to the court, however, the Framework Convention is considered just a sort of policy paper in Lithuania. This is a nonsensical statement, as the FCNM was adopted by the Seym of the Republic of Lithuania, by means of the instrument of ratification, on 17th February 2000. The Lithuanian Parliament has not managed to adjust Lithuanian lawmaking to the provisions of the Framework Convention for fourteen years.
The Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania in article 138 states that an international treaty ratified by the Seym of the Republic of Lithuania, becomes part of the Lithuanian jurisprudence. It is a source of international law, which is a directly applicable legislative act. According to the rule of international law’s supremacy over domestic law (Law on International Treaties of the Republic of Lithuania – article 11, paragraph 2; The Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania – article 135), precedence should be given to the legal regulation included in the FCNM in the event of internal law’s incompatibility with the Framework Convention’s provisions, or a lack of precision in domestic acts – the FCNM cannot be freely interpreted. This is the reason why the provisions concerning protection of national minorities’ rights, included in Law on the State Language, cannot be interpreted in a different fashion or applied in a different way than it is stated in the international legal document adopted by the Republic of Lithuania. There cannot be any different rules concerning them.
The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania spoke on this subject (the decision from 17th October 1995). On the basis of given legal provisions, all the institutions in Lithuania, including the Vilnius District Municipality, all the officials (also the Director of Vilnius Local Administration) shall apply the international legal document, adopted by Lithuania, directly – and the same should happen in the case of the provisions of the European Charter of Local Self-Government, which has been ratified by Lithuania, and which states that the question of street nomenclature belongs to a local government, to a municipality.
On 14th January, an event of great importance for us, the representatives of national minorities in Lithuania, took place in the European Parliament. Our representative, Member of the European Parliament Valdemar Tomaševski, spoke up for our rights. We are glad that in this manner our problems have been elucidated on the international forum.
We are especially grateful for reminding Mrs. President of the Republic of Lithuania, as well as all those gathered (including President of the European Parliament Martin Schulz, and President of the European Commission José Manuel Barroso) that it is unacceptable to violate basic human rights, including minority rights, in Europe. It is unpardonable and intolerable for a country which is a member of the EU and NATO, to prosecute and punish people for using their mother tongue in public. What will be the next step of the Lithuanian government: a prohibition on using our language in our own houses and, after that, maybe a prohibition on thinking in Polish?
I support the actions of Valdemar Tomaševski, and other parliamentarians who flatly opposed violating the rights of minorities in Lithuania. Apart from offending Mr. Tomaševski, President Dalia Grybauskaitė did not have much to say. An MEP representing the Polish minority in Lithuania could not possibly behave in a different way. President Dalia Grybauskaitė lied to the public and to the representatives of the European Parliament, claiming in her speech that the reports of international organizations had not found any incorrectness in the Lithuanian treatment of minority rights. Well, the President is lying, as evidenced by the following reports:
1. The Resolution by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe from 2012, concerning Lithuania’s compliance with the decisions of the Framework Convention connected with national minorities’ language rights, the lack of laws regulating the protection of minority rights in the country, strengthening the system of consulting national minorities’ representatives in cases regarding them. Resolution CM / ResCMN (2012)19 on the implementation of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities by Lithuania:https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?id=2009951&Site=CM&BackColorInternet=C3C3C3&BackColorIntranet=EDB021&BackColorLogged=F5D383;
2. The Report by the European Commission Against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI): http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/monitoring/ecri/Country-by-country/Lithuania/LTU-CbC-IV-2011-038-ENG.pdf;
3. The Report by the European Network Against Racism (ENAR) mentions the aggravating situation of the Polish minority in Lithuania;
4. In February 2011, the Human Rights Monitoring Institute in Vilnius (HRMI) in its Alternative Report based on Lithuania’s Fourth and Fifth Periodic Reports under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD) emphasized that “Lithuania is characterized by a low level of human rights awareness among decision-makers, public servants, judiciary, media and population, in general. The state has yet to develop an efficient institutional and legal framework for the protection of human rights in Lithuania”;
5. The Report by Freedom House, criticizing the new Lithuanian Act on Education, adopted in March 2011, which forced the students who took their final high school exams (matura exams) in 2013 to pass the same Lithuanian language tests as their fellow students from Lithuanian schools: (http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2012/lithuania);
6. The Report of Knut Vollebaek, High Commissioner on National Minorities of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe, from May 2012, on the situation of national minorities in Lithuania.
The reports agree on the subject of the worsening situation of national minorities in Lithuania. We cannot condone a depletion in our rights. What matters is, most importantly, the welfare and better future for our children. We want to raise them according to our culture and tradition, as – together with the mother tongue – they are the most basic value of the nation.
I support the MEP’s actions and sympathize with him defending the minority rights in Lithuania.
However, I feel sorry for Renata, provided that she really exists. Not everyone has to be a patriot, but one does not have to boast about it, as there is no reason to do it.
I am deeply convinced that this is a deliberate action taken by a certain group wishing to introduce chaos into our Polish environment. We have already endured much more difficult times, and now we will survive as well. Thanks to Mr. V. Tomaševski, who exposed the problem of minority rights in Lithuania on the international forum, malpractices and violations of basic rights in Lithuania will be disclosed, and let us hope that they will never happen again.
Renata Cytacka
Tłumaczenie by Agata Weronika Chrobak w ramach praktyk w Europejskiej Fundacji Praw Człowieka, www.efhr.eu. Translated by Agata Weronika Chrobak within the framework of a traineeship programme of the European Foundation of Human Rights, www.efhr.eu.
