Languages as a Barrier to Free Movement of Persons in the European Union
Iris Goldner Lang
Faculty of Law, University of Zagreb (Croatia)
Languages in the EU have both positive and negative implications. They can be viewed as rights, on the
one hand, and as barriers, on the other hand. The proclaimed protection of cultural and linguistic diversity
of the EU Member States and certain language requirements can sometimes limit or impede market
freedoms in the EU. This paper will discuss languages both as rights and barriers in the EU. It will first
take a look at their role as individual, group and state rights and then concentrate on languages as barriers
to free movement of people in the EU. According to EC law, the requirement of language knowledge can be
justified when “necessary for practising the profession in the host Member State” or when “required by
reason of the nature of the post to be filled”. The paper will trace the rule of “necessity” in the light of the
case-law of the European Court of Justice (ECJ). It will try to detect how to balance free movement of
persons and acceptable linguistic limitations to such freedom. The last part of the paper will address the
issue of languages as barriers in a case-study in the field of sport. The author will try to argue that the new
language rule of the Ladies Professional Golf Association, which will require all players to speak English
or face suspension, could be contrary to EC law, since it could create unjustified and disproportionate
discrimination in the field of sport. The author will explain the connection between the language rule of the
golf association and EC law and provide arguments claiming that the case is within the scope of EC law.
Keywords: languages, EU, free movement of persons, barrier, non-discrimination.
1. Introduction
The European Union is a multilingual and multicultural community where 23 official and
some 60 more languages co-exist in one geographical area. Past enlargements, expanding
the Union to 27 Member States and almost 500 million inhabitants, have increased
linguistic and cultural diversity of the EU. The EU internal market grants EU citizens the
right to move freely to other Member States as workers and their family members, selfestablished persons, providers of services, students, retired persons or just for the purpose
of leisure. When crossing state borders, EU citizens are usually also crossing language
borders, which can thus become barriers to free movement of people. Such potential
problems stress the need for an EU policy on multilingualism.
According to its Communication from 2005 entitled «A New Framework Strategy for
Multilingualism», the Commission's multilingualism policy has three aims: 1) to
encourage language learning and promote linguistic diversity in society, 2) to promote a
healthy multilingual economy, and 3) to give citizens access to European Union
legislation, procedures and information in their own languages. The European
Commission established a separate Directorate General (DG) for multilingualism on 1
January 2007 to reflect the political dimension of multilingualism in the EU. Another
reason was that it probably lacked portfolios for new Commissioners after Bulgaria and
Romania joined the Union in 2007, so the post of a new Commissioner for
Multilingualism was entrusted to Leonard Orban, a Romanian national. The motto
«united in diversity», which was adopted in 2000, reflects the idea of European
integration, while preserving cultural and linguistic diversity of EU citizens. On the other
hand, the existence of so many different cultures and languages in the EU highlights the
need for a common European identity, which seems to be weak if not completely
deficient in the EU nowadays.
Languages in the EU have both positive and negative implications. They can be viewed
as rights, on the one hand, and as barriers, on the other hand. The proclaimed protection
of cultural and linguistic diversity of the EU Member States and certain language
requirements can sometimes limit or impede market freedoms in the EU. This paper will
discuss languages both as rights and barriers in the EU. It will first take a look at their
role as individual, group and state rights and then concentrate on languages as barriers to
free movement of people in the EU. According to EC law, the requirement of language
knowledge can be justified when “necessary for practising the profession in the host
Member State” or when “required by reason of the nature of the post to be filled”. The
paper will trace the rule of “necessity” in the light of the case-law of the European Court
of Justice (ECJ). It will try to detect how to balance free movement of persons and
acceptable linguistic limitations to such freedom. The last part of the paper will address
the issue of languages as barriers in a case-study in the field of sport. The author will try
to argue that the new language rule of the Ladies Professional Golf Association, which
will require all players to speak English or face suspension, could be contrary to EC law,
since it could create unjustified and disproportionate discrimination in the field of sport.
The author will explain the connection between the language rule of the golf association
and EC law and provide arguments claiming that the case is within the scope of EC law.
2. Languages as Rights
Languages can be perceived as rights at three different levels: individual, group and state
level. As the right of individuals, languages are the most manifest demonstration of one's
identity. As stated in the Commission Communication entitled «A New Framework
Strategy for Multilingualism», “language is the most direct expression of culture; it is
what makes us human and what gives each of us a sense of identity”. Second,
discrimination based on language is prohibited in the Union. Article 22 of the Charter of
Fundamental Rights of the European Union stipulates that the Union shall respect
cultural, religious and linguistic diversity. Article 21 of the Charter prohibits
discrimination on a number of different grounds, including language.
The principle of non-discrimination as regards language rights is also visible in the caselaw of the ECJ. In cases 137/84 Mutsch and C-274/96 Bickel & Franz, the Court stated
that language rights granted by a Member State to its own national must be extended to
other EC nationals. Both cases were about the use of language, which was not the
principal language in that Member State in the criminal proceedings against nationals of
another Member State. In both cases the accused requested that the proceedings be
conducted in another language since he had no knowledge of the principal language of
the Member State concerned. In Mutsch, Mr. Mutsch was a Luxembourg national
residing in a German-speaking municipality in Belgium. In the criminal proceedings
against him, Mr. Mutsch relied on Belgian law on the use of languages in the courts,
according to which where an accused person of Belgian nationality resides in the
specified German-speaking municipality and so requests, the proceedings before the
court shall be conducted in German. The Belgian court was uncertain whether only
Belgian nationals could rely on this provision or whether Mr. Mutsch, who was a
Luxembourg national, had the same right. In its judgment, the ECJ stated that “the
principle of free movement of workers requires that a worker, who is a national of one
Member State and habitually resides in another Member State, be entitled to require that
criminal proceedings against him take place in a language other than the language
normally used in proceedings before the court which tries him, if workers who are
nationals of the host Member State have that right in the same circumstances”.
In Bickel & Franz, Mr. Bickel was Austrian and Mr. Franz was German and they both
requested the proceedings to be conducted in German instead of Italian. It is important to
note that the proceedings were taking place in Bolzano, an Italian province where
German has the same status as Italian and where domestic citizens have the right to use
German in relation to judicial and administrative bodies based in that province. In its
judgment, the ECJ relied on Art. 12 of the EC Treaty, which prohibits any discrimination
based on nationality. It stated that Art. 12 EC “precludes national rules which, in respect
of a particular language other than the principal language of the Member State concerned,
confer on citizens whose language is that particular language and who are resident in a
defined area, the right to require that criminal proceedings be conducted in that language,
without conferring the same right on nationals of other Member States travelling or
staying in that area, whose language is the same”. However, the Court has not clarified
which level of proficiency is necessary for a language to be ascribed to a person, i.e.
whether he/she must be able to speak the language or just understand it, in order to rely
on this rule (Creech 2005: 119-120).
Cases Mutsch and Bickel & Franz confirm the rule that a Member State may not treat
nationals of other Member States differently than its own nationals as regards the right of
use of language in the criminal proceedings. Bickel & Franz shows that the principle of
non-discrimination applies also to cases when the individual concerned is not resident in
that Member State. Unlike in Mutsch, where the Court relies on the provisions of free
movement of workers, in Bickel & Franz the ECJ uses Article 12 EC as the legal basis
for its judgment. However, it remains unclear whether, by relying on Art. 12 EC, as the
provision that prohibits any discrimination based on nationality, the Court is actually
equating non-discrimination on the basis of nationality and non-discrimination on the
basis of language (Creech 2005: 121-122), or saying that the principle of nondiscrimination on the basis of languages is contained within the principle of nondiscrimination on the basis of nationality. Finally, the principle of non-discrimination on
the basis of language in criminal proceedings should be equally applicable to civil
proceedings (Creech 2005: 122).
The third manifestation of languages as individual rights in the EU is the right to
language learning. EU institutions are strongly supporting and encouraging language
learning by a number of programmes and initiatives in this area, while 2001 was declared
the European Year of Languages. However, most university students through the
Erasmus programme tend to continue their studies in those countries where the most
popular languages are spoken, while citizens seem to be reluctant to learn less popular
languages (López de Luzuriaga 2006). According to Special Eurobarometer 243
“Europeans and their Languages” from 2006, 53% of EU citizens think that knowing
languages other than your mother tongue is very useful, while 30% think it is fairly
useful. Furthermore, 56% of EU citizens are able to hold a conversation in one language
apart from their mother tongue, 28% in two more languages and 11% in three more
languages apart from their mother tongue. Such data show the existence of public
awareness about the benefits of language learning.
Consumer protection is another area where languages as individual rights come into play.
According to Directive 2000/13 on the approximation of the laws of the Member States
relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs - labelling should
provide clear information in a language easily understood by the consumer and must not
mislead the purchaser to a material degree. Additionally, Unfair Commercial Practices
Directive 2005/29 protects consumers concerning the language used in after-sales
service. In its case-law on labelling of foodstuffs, the ECJ has interpreted the relevant
provisions of Directive 2000/13 extensively, thus enabling a higher degree of consumer
protection. In case C-315/05 Lidl Italia the Court concluded that relevant provisions of
Directive 2000/13 do not preclude the liability of a distributor (and not just producer) of a
product, in case of an infringement of labelling instructions contained in the Directive. In
such a case the distributor can be penalized by an administrative fine, even where it just
markets the product, pre-packaged and delivered to it by the producer from another
Member State. As regards Lidl Italia’s claim not to be able to know whether or not the
label affixed to the packaging by the producer contains true information and not to be
able to do anything about it, the Court stated that “it is for the national law to lay down
the methods by which a distributor may be held liable for infringement of obligations as
regards labelling” and “to regulate the apportionment of respective liability between the
different operators involved in the marketing of the foodstuff in question”.
In his Opinion in this case, Advocate General Stix-Hackl elaborated that a further
argument in support of the proposition that also the distributor can be held liable is the
fact that the information which appears on the label can be drafted in a language different
from that of the manufacturer. According to the Advocate General such a possibility
leads to the conclusion “that the distributor plays an important role in guaranteeing
compliance with the rules on labelling, that is to say in ensuring that the ultimate
consumer receives all the necessary information on the product offered for sale in a
language which he easily understands, although, admittedly, this says nothing about
whether the distributor can also be held liable for the substantive accuracy of the
particulars concerned”.
Another very important manifestation of languages as individual rights is the right of EU
citizens to access EU law and communicate with EU institutions in their own languages.
Since EU primary and secondary law is binding on EU citizens, reasons of transparency
and democracy require that citizens are able to read EU law and communicate with EU
institutions in their own languages. As regards the accessibility of EU primary law, Art.
314 EC, Art. 53 EU and the Acts of Accession for the states that acceded to the Union in
2004 and 2007 stipulate that the EC Treaty and the EU Treaty are authentic in all 23
official languages of the EU. As regards the accessibility of EU secondary law, Art. 4 of
the amended Regulation 1/1958 determining the languages to be used by the European
Economic Community stipulates that “regulations and other documents of general
application shall be drafted in the official languages”. Furthermore, Art. 5 of Regulation
1/1958 states that “the Official Journal of the European Union shall be published in the
official languages”. Furthermore, in its case 283/81 CILFIT, the ECJ repeated that
different language versions of EC legislation are all equally authentic. It continued that an
interpretation of a provision of EC law involves a comparison of the different language
versions, while interpretation has to be done in a teleological and not literal way.
EU citizens have the right to communicate with EU institutions in their own languages.
According to Art. 21 EC and Art. 2 of Regulation 1/1958, EU citizens may use all Treaty
languages when approaching EU institutions. However, there is no generally applicable
principle of equality of languages that binds all EU bodies. According to case 361/01 Kik,
the right to communicate in one’s own language applies only to EU institutions and
bodies listed in the Treaty. Accordingly, these institutions and bodies are: the European
Parliament, the Council, the Commission, the ECJ, the Court of Auditors, the Economic
and Social Committee, the Committee of the Regions and the Ombudsman. As the Court
stated, there is no “general principle of Community law that confers a right on every
citizen to have a version of anything that might affect his interests drawn up in his
language in all circumstances”.
Apart from its manifestation as individual rights, language rights can also be perceived as
group and state rights. One of the most distinct manifestations of languages as group
rights are minority language rights, which are not going to be analysed in this paper (Nic
Shuibhne 2001: 61-77; Dunbar 2001)). On the other hand, at state level, the Union grants
Member States formal equality of their official languages. However, it is noteworthy that
not all the official languages of its Member States are official languages of the European
Union, Catalan and Basque being two such examples (Urrutia &Lasagabaster 2007: 483).
Formal equality of all Member States is visible in four facts, which have been discussed
previously. First, the Treaties are equally authentic in all official languages of the EU.
Second, all secondary law of general application has to be drafted in the official
languages, while the Official Journal has to be published in the official languages.
Thirdly, EU citizens have the right to approach EU institutions and bodies (though, only
those listed in relevant articles of the Treaty) in their own language. Finally, the European
Union has 23 official and working languages of the institutions. Such status has been
attributed to Bulgarian, Czech, Danish, Dutch, English, Estonian, Finnish, French,
German, Greek, Hungarian, Irish, Italian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Maltese, Polish,
Portuguese, Romanian, Slovak, Slovenian, Spanish and Swedish by Regulation 1/1958
and its amendments contained in Regulation 920/2005 amending Regulation 1/1958,
Regulation 1791/2006 and Acts of Accession. Thus, Irish Gaelic was also declared an
official and working language in 2005 with effect deferred until 1 October 2007.
However, EU institutions were given the right, for a renewable period of five years, not
to draft all acts in Irish and publish them in that language in the Official Journal.
However, formal equality does not necessarily always imply practical equality of all EU
official languages. In everyday practice, EU institutions internally mostly use English,
French and, sometimes, German. Furthermore, the EU of 27 Member States has to bear a
heavy burden of financing translation and interpretation for 23 official languages (with
the exception of the Irish Gaelic). The process of translation adds to the complexity and
duration of different procedures in the Union. However, so far no initiative has been
successful in reducing the number of official languages in EU institutions. In a debate
organised by the European Commission, Prof. Abram de Swaan has suggested that
multilingualism is a “damned pain in the neck […] leading to an impoverished political
debate, and, curiously, it is the very usage of a multiplicity of languages that is leading to
the dominance of English” (Küchler 2008). Some scholars suggest that the language issue
in the EU today is one of the prominent challenges to supranational integration (Palermo
2006).
English is the dominant language in the EU in general, for a number of reasons. In the
globalized world, the most important media industries are located in the USA. Therefore,
the dominance of English language in the EU is not the result of the UK dominance in the
Union, but is partly associated with the USA dominance in the Western civilization. The
data entailed in the Special Eurobarometer 243 “Europeans and their Languages” from
2006 support the statement about the dominance of English in the EU. Accordingly,
English is spoken by 51% of EU citizens (13% of citizens use it as their mother tongue
and 38% as a foreign language), while German, which is used by 32% of EU citizens, is
ranking second, but lagging far behind English.
3. Languages as a Barrier to Free Movement of People
In the EU internal market, EU citizens can freely move to other Member States for the
purpose of employment, self-employment, provision of services, study, etc. As a result,
there is more interaction between nationals of different Member States. However, almost
every time an EU citizen crosses a national border, he/she also crosses a language border.
In this sense, language can become barriers to free movement of economically active
citizens, such as workers, self-employed persons and service providers, and economically
non-active citizens, such as students and pensioners. In order to make the internal market
more effective, the Union needs a more mobile workforce (Communication “A New
Framework Strategy for Multilingualism” 2005: 9). In order to promote language
learning and linguistic diversity, the Commission has initiated a number of actions and
programmes. Language skills were one of the issues addressed during the European Year
of Workers’ Mobility in 2006. As regards education of children of migrant workers, Art.
12 of Regulation 1612/68 on freedom of movement for workers within the Community,
provides that they shall be admitted to the host Member State’s “general educational,
apprenticeship and vocational courses under the same conditions as the nationals of that
state, if such children are residing in its territory” and continues that “Member States
shall encourage all efforts to enable such children to attend these courses under the best
possible conditions”.
The ECJ’s role here is to interpret the relevant Community provisions on the requirement
of linguistic knowledge and, thus, set limits on Member States’ language policy
requirements. Sometimes, the ECJ has to balance the competing values of national
language requirements, on the one hand, and fundamental freedoms, on the other hand.
However, according to Art. 149 EC, the Community has only complementary
competence in the field of language policy. It cannot adopt harmonising measures, but
only support and supplement Member States’ action in this field. Member States have
complete responsibility to decide on “the content of teaching and the organisation of
education systems and their cultural and linguistic diversity”.
Two provisions of secondary law refer to linguistic knowledge as a national requirement
for practicing a certain profession or for holding a certain post. Art. 53 of Directive
2005/36 on the recognition of professional qualifications stipulates that “persons
benefiting from the recognition of professional qualifications shall have a knowledge of
languages necessary for practising the profession in the host Member State”. It is
important here to determine which level of linguistic knowledge is considered necessary
for practicing a certain profession. Therefore, the word “necessary” has to be given
special attention. Furthermore, Art. 3 of Regulation 1612/68 on freedom of movement for
workers, establishes a rule that prevents a Member State from engaging in direct
discrimination of foreign nationals or from pursuing policies that result in indirect
discrimination against foreign nationals who wish to get employed in that Member State
(Creech 2005: 100). However, this general rule is subject to the linguistic exception
contained in the third indent of Art. 3, providing that “this provision shall not apply to
conditions relating to linguistic knowledge required by reason of the nature of the post to
be filled”. Similarly like in Art. 53 of Directive 2005/36, in this provision one has to
establish when and how much linguistic knowledge is required for holding a certain post.
The Court has addressed this issue in several cases (such as C-379/87 Groener, C-281/98
Angonese, C-424/97 Haim and Advocate General Jacobs in his Opinion in case C-238/98
Hocsman) where it has established that a language policy requirement affecting free
movement of economically active citizens from another Member State is justified
“provided that that requirement is applied in a proportionate and non-discriminatory
manner” (the statement that the language requirement must be provided in a nondiscriminatory manner is questionable, since the language requirement itself can be
understood as constituting indirect discrimination). A language requirement can, thus, be
an overriding reason of general interest justifying restrictions of fundamental freedoms,
provided that the restriction is applied in a non-discriminatory and proportionate manner.
4. Case-study - Language as a Barrier to Free Movement of People in Sport
This chapter will address the issue of languages as barriers to free movement of people in
a case-study in the field of sport. The author will try to argue that the new language rule
of the Ladies Professional Golf Association, which will require all players to speak
English or face suspension, could be contrary to EC law, since it could create unjustified
and disproportionate discrimination in the field of sport. The Ladies Professional Golf
Association (LPGA) is an American organisation for female professional golfers. It is
best known for running the LPGA Tour, a series of weekly golf tournaments for female
golfers from around the world. The Tour lasts from February to December each year. In
summer 2008, the LPGA announced a new policy whereas “all players who have been on
tour for two years must pass an oral evaluation of their English skills” while it would
apply immediately to new players (Walker 2008). The measure is supposed to start taking
effect at the end of 2009. Failure would result in suspended membership. The suspension
would last until a player improved her proficiency in English and passed an oral
evaluation. The fact that the evaluation is supposed to be oral is another problematic
issue, due to its subjective nature (Shipnuck 2008). Even more so, as it has been stated
that evaluation will be based on staff observations, since those “who already demonstrate
English proficiency will not be approached” (Walker 2008).
The official reason for the new language policy, provided by the LPGA Deputy
Commissioner Galloway, has been the following: “We are a U.S.-based tour, and English
is the language used by the vast majority of our sponsors and fans and media. It is vital
that our players can communicate with these core audiences. This is sport entertainment.
How we present ourselves is important” (Shipnuck 2008). The English-only rule is
supposed to be applied in three areas: 1) dealing with the media; 2) victory speeches; 3)
interaction during pro-am rounds. However, the unofficial reason for such a policy seems
to be connected with the statement given by a former LPGA star Jan Stephenson in 2003
that “the Asian are killing the tour” (Kriegel 2008). And it is true that for the last couple
of years the LPGA Tour has been dominated by international players. On the LPGA Tour
there are 121 international players representing 26 countries. Forty-five of them are South
Koreans. In summer 2008 they won eight times in a 11-tournament stretch, including two
major championships (Shipnuck 2008), while winners of 25 LPGA events in 2008 (by the
end of August 2008) include just three Americans (Kriegel 2008). It seems these data are
bothering the golf establishment.
What does the LPGA (discriminatory) policy have to do with EC law? Three arguments
supporting the connection with EC law need to be made here. First, as regards the venue,
most LPGA Tour tournaments are held in the USA, but almost one third of them (12 out
of 37 in 2008) are played outside the USA, including those played on the territory of EU
Member States, more precisely in France and the UK. In 2008, three tournaments have
been held in Mexico and one each in France, the UK, Singapore, Canada, China and
South Korea. Second, an EU sports organisation is co-organising the tournaments held in
France and the UK. In 2008, the Evian Masters in France and the Women’s British Open
were co-sanctioned by the UK-based sports organisation, the Ladies European Tour, a
company limited by guarantee. Thirdly, EU citizens are playing in the LPGA Tour
tournaments. As mentioned previously, golfers taking part in the Tour are from 26
different countries, including EU Member States. In 2008, there were 15 players from
Sweden, 9 from the UK, 4 from Germany, 3 from France, 2 from Italy, 1 from Spain and
1 from Finland. Therefore, in the future one could envisage a situation where, for
example, a French player who wants to take part in the tournament in the UK, cannot do
so because she has failed the oral examination. The fact that the Ladies European Tour is
co-sanctioning the tournament could imply that the French golfer could sue the Ladies
European Tour, which is a sports organisation based in the UK, before a national court
and claim that her right to free movement as a worker has been restricted, thus relying on
EC provisions on free movement of workers (particularly Art. 39 EC), just like in case C415/93 Bosman.
Upon determining the connection between the LPGA new language policy and EC law,
one would still have to establish whether this case is within the scope of EC law. Two
points have to be made in this respect. First, the Union has accepted the “specific nature
of sport”. According to ECJ’s cases 36/74 Walrave & Koch, 13/76 Donà v Mantero and
C-415/93 Bosman, “sport is subject to Community law only in so far as it constitutes and
economic activity within the meaning of Article 2 EC”. According to ECJ’s ruling in case
13/76 Donà v Mantero, this rule “applies to the activities of professional and semiprofessional football players, which are in the nature of gainful employment or
remunerated service”. Since the LPGA Tour tournaments constitute and economic
activity (in 2008, prize money on the LPGA Tour exceeded $58 million) and the new
language policy would have economic consequences for the Tour and its players, one
could claim that EC law could apply in this case. As stated by one of the commentators,
the new language policy “has nothing to do with sport” but it is “about “exclusion and
commerce”. Second, one could assert that the case is within the territorial scope of EC
law, as well. According to case 36/74 Walrave & Koch, the rule on non-discrimination
“applies in judging all legal relationships in so far as these relationships, by reason either
of the place where they are entered into or of the place where they take effect, can be
located within the territory of the Community”. Therefore, for those LPGA tournaments
taking effect in France and the UK, one could claim they are located within the Union
territory and have to comply with the principle of non-discrimination, which seems to be
violated here.
Is the LPGA English-only rule contrary to EC law? The measure would have to be nondiscriminatory and proportionate in order to be justified. As regards the issue of
discrimination, it seems that the measure would discriminate everybody who is not
proficient in English. All EU nationals whose mother tongue is not English or who are
not fluent in English could be suspended from the Tour, while their English colleagues
would not have to face this problem. The new language policy would have a
discriminatory effect not only for EU nationals not being proficient in English, but also
for a number of other groups. As the CNN has remarked, the LPGA policy is “an
absolute slap in the face of women, minorities, immigrants” and continued that “it would
be like France requiring Lance Armstrong to pass a French test” (by the way, Armstrong
did learn to speak French). Furthermore, it would be very difficult to prove that the
measure is proportionate. The measure is not necessary for the competition and there
seems to be no evident correlation between English proficiency and success in golf. It is
true that players have an incentive to learn English in order to be able to communicate
with sponsors, but this does not mean this should be made an obligation. For these
reasons, the measure probably could not be justified under EC law. Finally, in case this
matter did end up before the ECJ, its ruling could be enforced since it would bind all golf
governing bodies that are based in the EU, such as the Ladies European Tour, and would,
therefore, indirectly affect the LPGA tournaments held in the EU.
5. Conclusion
Languages in the EU, as everywhere in the world, are simultaneously creating rights and
barriers for EU citizens. They are at the same time a source of wealth and problems.
Their multifaceted nature can sometimes bring people further apart instead of connecting
them. In this respect EC law should help in finding a fine balance between the
preservation of languages as individual, group and state rights, on the one hand, and the
promotion of market freedoms, on the other hand.
Bibliography:
Books:
Creech, Richard L. (2005). Law and Language in the European Union: The Paradox of a
Babel «United in Diversity». Groningen: Europa Law Publishing.
Articles:
Dunbar, Robert (2001). Minority Language Rights in International Law. International
and Comparative Law Quarterly 50: 90-120.
Kriegel, Mark. (2008). Forcing English on LPGA is un-American. Foxsports. 28 August
2008. available at <http://msn.foxsports.com/golf/story/8498524> last accessed on 15
November 2008.
Küchler, Teresa. (2008). Multilingualism a “damned nuisance” says Dutch academic.
EUobserver. 15 September 2008. available at < http://euobserver.com/879/26742> last
accessed on 15 November 2008.
López de Luzuriaga, Viginia. (2006). Linguistic Pluralism in Europe and its
Implementation in the European Institutions. Euroculture.?
Nic Shuibhne, Niamh. (2001). The European Union and Minority Language Rights.
International Journal of Multicultural Societies (IJMS) 3/2: 61-77.
Palermo, Francesco. (2006). Linguistic Diversity within the Integrated Constitutional
Space. European Diversity and Autonomy Papers (EDAP) 2/2006: 1-44.
Shipnuck, Alan. (2008). Legal questions surround LPGA’s new rule requiring players to
speak
English.
GOLF
Magazine.
28
August
2008,
available
at
<http://www.golf.com/golf/tours_news/article/0,28136,1836650,00.html> last accessed
on 15 November 2008.
Urrutia, Iñigo & Lasagabaster, Iñaki. (2007). Language Rights as a General Principle of
Community Law. German Law Journal 8/5: 479-500.
Walker Jr, Michael. (2008). LPGA’s English-only policy is unsportsmanlike and unAmerican.
GOLF
Magazine.
26
August
2008,
available
at
<http://www.golf.com/golf/tours_news/article/0,28136,1836266,00.html> last accessed
on 15 November 2008.
“English-only” LPGA rule faces legal challenge. (2008). CNN. 5 September 2008.
Documents:
Act concerning the conditions of accession of the Czech Republic, the Republic of
Estonia, the Republic of Cyprus, the Republic of Latvia, the Republic of Lithuania, the
Republic of Hungary, the Republic of Malta, the Republic of Poland, the Republic of
Slovenia and the Slovak Republic and the adjustments to the Treaties on which the
European Union is founded, OJ L 236/33 of 23 September 2003
Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, OJ C 364, 18 December 2000, p.
1.
Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the
European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: “A New
Framework Strategy for Multilingualism”, COM(2005) 596 final, 22 November 2005.
Protocol Concerning the conditions and arrangements for admission of the Republic of
Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union, OJ L 157/29, 21 June 2005.
Directive 2000/13/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 March 2000
on the approximation of laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation
and advertising of foodstuffs, OJ L 109, 6 May 2000, p. 29.
Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005
concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and
amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC
of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the
European Parliament and of the Council, OJ L 149/22, 11 June 2005.
Directive 2005/36/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 September
2005 on the recognition of professional qualifications, OJ L 255, 30 September 2005, p.
22-142.
Regulation 1/1958 determining the languages to be used by the European Economic
Community, OJ L 17, 6 October 1958, p. 385.
Regulation 1612/68 of the Council of 15 October 1968 on freedom of movement for
workers within the Community, OJ L 257, 19 October 1968, p. 2.
Special Eurobarometer 243 «Europeans and their Languages, February 2006.
Treaty on European Union (consolidated text), OJ C 325 of 24 December 2002,
<http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/dat/12002M/htm/12002M.html>
Treaty establishing the European Community (consolidated text), OJ C 325 of 24
December 2002 TEC,
<http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/treaties/dat/12002E/htm/12002E.html >
Cases (in numerical order):
Case 36/74 B.N.O. Walrave and L.J.N. Koch v Association Union cycliste internationale,
Koninklijke Nederlandsche Wielren Unie et Federación Española Ciclismo [1974] ECR
1405.
Case 13/76 Gaetano Donà v Mario Mantero [1976] ECR 1333.
Case 283/81 Srl CILFIT and Lanificio di Gavardo SpA v Ministry of Health [1982] ECR
3415
Case 137/84 Criminal proceedings against Robert Heinrich Maria Mutsch [1985] ECR
2681.
Case C-379/87 Anita Groener v Minister for Education and the City of Dublin Vocational
Educational Committee [1989] ECR 3967.
Case C-415/93 Union royale belge des sociétés de football association ASBL v JeanMarc Bosman, Royal club liégeois SA v Jean-Marc Bosman and others and Union des
associations européennes de football (UEFA) v Jean-Marc Bosman [1995] ECR I-4921.
Case 274/96 Criminal proceedings against Horst Otto Bickel and Ulrich Franz [1998]
ECR I-7637.
Case C-424/97 Salomone Haim v. Kassenzahnärztliche Vereinigung Nordrhein [2000]
ECR I-5123.
Case C-238/98 Hugo Fernando Hocsman v. Ministre de l'Emploi et de la Solidarité
[2000] ECR I-6623.
Case C-281/98 Roman Angonese v Cassa di Risparmio di Bolzano SpA [2000] ECR I4139.
Case C-361/01 Christina Kik v. Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market [2003]
ECR I-8283.
Case C-315/05 Lidl Italia Srl v. Comune di Arcole (VR) [2006] ECR I-11181.