232 / 536
218
HARALD CHRISTIAN SCHEU
CYIL 7 ȍ2016Ȏ
The disagreement between the Advisory Committee and the German government
continued in the subsequent monitoring cycles. In its evaluation of the second German
compliance report under the Framework Convention the Advisory Committee again
recommended the article-by-article approach and specifically cited the example of
the Turkish minority in Germany.
28
In the third monitoring cycle
29
the Advisory
Committee, although no longer mentioning the need of an article-by-article
approach, referred to “the growing cultural diversity of German society” and again
recommended the extension of protection under the Framework Convention to new
minorities. Rainer Hofmann, the German member of the Advisory Committee and
its longtime chairman, does not expect that this open conflict between the Advisory
Committee and the German government will be solved in short time.
30
A similar problem arose in the relationship between the Advisory Committee and
Austria. In its national regulations Austria applies a rather conservative definition of
a national minority. In its third compliance report under the Framework Convention
31
the Austrian government rejected the article-by-article approach proposed by the
Advisory Committee and argued that the precise distinction between traditional
national minorities and new migrant communities brings legal certainty to all groups
concerned.
According to the Austrian government, the application of selected articles to
selected minorities might lead to unequal treatment. The Austrian government
finds that the distinction between traditional and new minorities has proven to
be successful in practice as it allows to take into account the different needs of
different categories of minorities. Under the Austrian model, traditional national
minorities shall be granted protection of their existence e.g. with regard to minority
languages and different ethnicity. The focus of the protection of new minorities, on
the contrary, shall be on their integration in the areas of education and employment.
Also the communication between the Advisory Committee and Liechtenstein
has undergone an interesting development. After Lichtenstein in its unilateral
declaration of 1997 had announced that there were no national minorities within
the meaning of the Framework Convention on its territory, it insisted on this
position also in its initial compliance report.
32
The Advisory Committee, however,
replied that Liechtenstein should consider the inclusion of other groups, based on
28
ACFC/OP/II(2006)001, p. 8.
29
ACFC/OP/III(2010)003, pp. 11-12.
30
HOFMANN, R. Das Rahmenübereinkommen zum Schutz nationaler Minderheiten. Einführung,
Überblick, Würdigung. In: HOFMANN, R., ANGST, D., LANTSCHNER, E. RAUTZ, G., REIN, D.
(eds.)
Rahmenübereinkommen zum Schutz nationaler Minderheiten. Handkommentar
, Baden-Baden:
Nomos, 2015, p. 98.
31
ACFC/SR/III(2010)010 rev, p. 15.
32
ACFC/SR(1999)004.