Advisory Committee on the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities
Opinion on Ukraine
adopted on 1 March 2002
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Following the receipt of the initial State Report of Ukraine on 2 November 1999
(due on 1 May 1999), the Advisory Committee commenced the examination of the State Report at its 6th
meeting on 22 – 24 November 1999. In the context of this examination, a delegation of the Advisory Committee
visited Ukraine, on 4 - 7 December 2001, in order to seek further information on the implementation of the
Framework Convention from representatives of the Government as well as from NGOs and other independent sources.
The Advisory Committee adopted its opinion on Ukraine at its 13th meeting on 1 March 2002.
As concerns the implementation of the Framework Convention, the Advisory Committee
considers that Ukraine has made commendable efforts in terms of designing legislation of a general nature for
the protection of national minorities. Ukraine has also demonstrated commitment to the implementation of this
legislation, notwithstanding a number of remaining difficulties.
There are nevertheless shortcomings in the present legislative framework pertaining
to the implementation of the Framework Convention, including in the field of electronic media. There have also been
certain setbacks in the commendable normative protection designed for national minorities, notably in the electoral legislation.
As regards practice, the Advisory Committee notes that a spirit of tolerance and
inter-ethnic dialogue generally prevails in Ukraine, but disputes related to language issues have caused tension.
In order to ease such tension, it is crucial that the pending legislative and practical initiatives in this sphere
are pursued in full compliance with the Framework Convention.
Bearing in mind the reports concerning de facto discrimination of persons
belonging to certain national minorities, such as Roma, the Advisory Committee finds it important that Ukraine
improves the manner in which such cases are monitored and addressed by law-enforcement and other authorities concerned.
The Advisory Committee believes that the implementation of the Framework Convention
has not been fully successful as regards Crimean Tatars and other formerly deported people, inter alia, in
terms of their participation in cultural, social and economic life and in public affairs, although the increasing
efforts of the central Government have resulted in certain improvements in this respect.
The Advisory Committee is of the opinion that the implementation of the Framework
Convention in the educational sphere merits particular attention from the authorities with a view to ensuring that
the on-going reforms in this sphere do not result in undue limitations on the existing right of persons belonging to
national minorities to receive instruction in and/or of their languages.
I. PREPARATION OF THE CURRENT OPINION
1. The initial State Report of Ukraine (hereinafter: the State Report), due on 1
May 1999, was received on 2 November 1999. The Advisory Committee commenced the examination of the State Report
at its 6th meeting, on 22 – 24 November 1999.
2. In the context of this examination, the Advisory Committee identified a number
of points on which it wished to obtain fuller information. A questionnaire was therefore sent to the authorities
on 18 September 2001. The Government’s reply to this questionnaire was received on 24 January 2002.
3. Further to an invitation from the Government of Ukraine, and in accordance with
Rule 32 of the Committee of Ministers’ Resolution (97) 10, a delegation of the Advisory Committee visited Ukraine
from 4 – 7 December 2001 in order to obtain supplementary information from representatives of the Government, NGOs
and other independent sources on the implementation of the Framework Convention. In preparing this opinion,
the Advisory Committee also consulted a range of written materials from various Council of Europe bodies,
other international organisations, NGOs and other independent sources.
4. The Advisory Committee subsequently adopted this opinion at its 13th
meeting on 12002 and decided to transmit it to the Committee of Ministers1.
5. The present opinion is submitted pursuant to Article 26 (1) of the Framework
Convention, according to which, in evaluating the adequacy of the measures taken by the Parties to give effect
to the principles of the Framework Convention, "the Committee of Ministers shall be assisted by an advisory
committee", as well as pursuant to Rule 23 of Resolution (97) 10 of the Committee of Ministers, according to
which the "Advisory Committee shall consider the state reports and shall transmit its opinion to the Committee
of Ministers".
II. GENERAL REMARKS
6. The Advisory Committee notes that the State Report provides an overview of
the main aspects of the legislative framework pertaining to the protection of national minorities. However,
there is only limited information on the relevant practice.
7. The Advisory Committee did however obtain a fuller picture of the situation
through the Government's written reply to a questionnaire by the Advisory Committee and, in particular, through
the above-mentioned visit to Ukraine (see paragraph 3 of the present opinion). The Advisory Committee finds
that the visit organised upon an invitation by the Government of Ukraine provided an excellent opportunity to
have a direct dialogue with various sources. The additional information provided by the Government and by other
sources, including by representatives of national minorities, was most valuable, especially as concerns the
implementation of relevant norms in practice.
8. The Advisory Committee regrets that when preparing the State Report the
Government did not conduct substantial consultations with representatives of national minorities or other
elements of civil society. The Advisory Committee has also received reports according to which the resulting
public State Report was not easily accessible to the representatives of non-governmental organisations and that the awareness of the Framework
Convention and its monitoring mechanism is limited amongst officials especially
at the local level.
9. The Advisory Committee encourages the Government to take further measures
to improve awareness of the Framework Convention, its explanatory report and the rules concerning its monitoring
at the international level, including through publication and dissemination of the State Report and other relevant documents.
10. In the following part of the opinion, it is stated in respect of a number of
articles that, based on the information currently at its disposal, the Advisory Committee considers that implementation
of the article at issue does not give rise to any specific observations. The Advisory Committee wishes to make clear
that this statement is not to be understood as signalling that adequate measures have now been taken and that efforts
in this respect may be diminished or even halted. Indeed, the Advisory Committee considers that the nature of
the obligations of the Framework Convention requires a sustained and continued effort by the authorities to respect
the principles and achieve the goals of the Framework Convention. Furthermore, a certain state of affairs may,
in the light of the recent entry into force of the Framework Convention, be considered acceptable at this stage
but that need not necessarily be so in further cycles of monitoring. Finally, it may be the case that issues that
appear at this stage to be of relatively minor concern, prove over time to have been underestimated.
III. SPECIFIC COMMENTS IN RESPECT OF ARTICLES 1-19
Article 1
11. The Advisory Committee notes that Ukraine has ratified a wide range of relevant
international instruments. Based on the information currently at its disposal, the Advisory Committee considers
that implementation of this article does not give rise to any further observations.
Article 2
12. Based on the information currently at its disposal, the Advisory Committee
considers that implementation of this article does not give rise to any specific observations.
Article 3
13. The Advisory Committee underlines that in the absence of a definition in the
Framework Convention itself, the Parties must examine the personal scope of application to be given to the Framework
Convention within their country. The position of the Government of Ukraine is therefore deemed to be the outcome
of this examination.
14. Whereas the Advisory Committee notes on the one hand that Parties have a margin
of appreciation in this respect in order to take the specific circumstances prevailing in their country into account,
it notes on the other hand that this must be exercised in accordance with general principles of international law
and the fundamental principles set out in Article 3. In particular, it stresses that the implementation of the
Framework Convention should not be a source of arbitrary or unjustified distinctions.
15. For this reason the Advisory Committee considers that it is part of its duty to
examine the personal scope given to the implementation of the Framework Convention in order to verify that no arbitrary
or unjustified distinctions have been made. Furthermore, it considers that it must verify the proper application
of the fundamental principles set out in Article 3.
16. The Advisory Committee notes that Ukraine has not established a list of national
minorities. The State Report implies that all 130 “nationalities” residing in Ukraine, except the Ukrainians, are
covered by the Framework Convention2. At the same time, the State Report employs the
term “ethnographic (sub-ethnic) groups of the Ukrainian people” - a term that is not defined in any legislation
pertaining to national minorities - to describe e.g. the Boikos, Hutsuls and Rusyns, without giving comprehensive
information on their situation and without indicating whether it considers that persons belonging to these
groups are protected by the Framework Convention. The Advisory Committee is aware of the fact that in particular
Rusyns have made extensive efforts to obtain from the Government a fuller recognition of, and support for,
their specific identity. The Advisory Committee believes that these concerns merit attention and it is therefore
pleased to note that the authorities have taken certain steps to address them. In particular, the Advisory
Committee welcomes the fact that, unlike in the census of 1989, the Rusyns and other “sub-ethnic groups” are
treated as a separate category under “ethnic origin” in the census of December 2001. This recognition of their
separate identity is however limited: in contrast to 130 other groups, Rusyns and the other seven “sub-ethnic
groups” will not be considered a separate “nationality” category in the census but a part of the Ukrainian
“nationality”. The Advisory Committee nevertheless expects that the numerical data concerning various “ethnic
origin” categories will also be made public and that, thereby, the results of the census will provide a basis
for an improved dialogue between persons belonging to the groups concerned and the authorities, covering also
issues pertaining to the implementation of the Framework Convention.
17. The Advisory Committee notes that certain legislation pertaining to national
minorities, notably the 1992 Law on National Minorities, applies only to citizens of Ukraine. The Advisory
Committee notes that this limitation affects also persons belonging to groups addressed in the State Report,
bearing in mind the difficulties that the formerly deported people have had in obtaining the citizenship of
Ukraine (see also related comments under Article 15).
18. With a view to the preceding paragraphs, the Advisory Committee considers that
there remains scope for covering further groups within the scope of the Framework Convention. The Advisory Committee
is of the opinion that it would be possible to consider the inclusion of persons belonging to these groups,
including non-citizens as appropriate, in the application of the Framework Convention on an article-by-article
basis, and the Advisory Committee takes the view that the Ukraine authorities should consider this issue in
consultation with those concerned.
19. The Advisory Committee further notes that the State Report deals with persons
belonging to groups whose representatives have certain hesitations about the use of the term “national minorities”
to describe the population concerned. This is the case in particular for the Crimean Tatars, whose representatives
prefer the term “indigenous people”. The Advisory Committee shares the view, held by the Government and a number
of representatives of the Crimean Tatars that the recognition of a group of persons as constituting an indigenous people
does not exclude persons belonging to that group from benefiting from protection afforded by the Framework Convention.
This conclusion is of particular importance in view of the fact that, although the term “indigenous people” is
featured in Article 11 of the Constitution, this concept has not been developed in the legislation or practice of Ukraine
and there exist no specific legislative guarantees for the protection of indigenous peoples as such in the domestic legislation.
20. The Advisory Committee also notes that amongst persons belonging to the Russian
minority in Ukraine there is a certain reluctance to employ the term national minority. Furthermore, it needs to be
noted that, in addition to the ethnic Russians, there is a large number of ethnic Ukrainians whose mother tongue
is Russian. These factors need to be taken into account when the authorities take measures to implement the Framework
Convention and they also need to be reflected in the terminology used.
21. The Advisory Committee notes that there have been extensive debates in Ukraine
on the inter-relation between the Romanian and Moldovan identities. The Advisory Committee underlines that this issue
should be approached with full respect to the principles contained in Article 3 of the Framework Convention, and that
there should be no attempts to impose one or the other identity on the persons concerned. In this respect, the Advisory
Committee welcomes the fact that the census of 2001 recognised both identities concerned on an equal footing.
22. The Advisory Committee notes that the questionnaire on the basis of which the
December 2001 census was conducted contained a mandatory question on individuals’ “nationality/ethnic origin”. While
appreciating the need to have quality data in this field, the Advisory Committee considers that the right not
to be treated as a person belonging to a national minority also extends to census situations and that a mandatory
question on one’s ethnicity is not compatible with this principle, even if, as is reportedly the case in Ukraine, the
authorities concerned have no plans to impose sanctions for violations of this rule. The Advisory Committee is of
the opinion that, pursuant to Article 3 of the Framework Convention, if a census form contains a question on one’s
ethnicity, answering such a question should be optional and that Ukraine should revise its practice accordingly.
23. The Advisory Committee has been informed that, in some circumstances, law-enforcement
officials collect information on persons’ ethnicity. They have, for example, collected “operational statistics”
pertaining to the criminal convictions related to specific national minorities. These include detailed statistics
concerning criminal proceedings against Crimean Tatars and Roma in various regions. The Advisory Committee is deeply
concerned about this situation, especially since such practices would appear to have no clear legal basis and
they are not carried out solely on the basis of voluntary identification by the persons concerned. The Advisory
Committee is of the opinion that collection of personal data on individuals' affiliation with a particular
national minority without their consent and without adequate legal safeguards is not compatible with Article 3
of the Framework Convention. The Advisory Committee considers it essential that Ukraine revise its practice and
pay careful attention to this principle when collecting data in the future.
24. Bearing in mind the foregoing, the Advisory Committee finds it essential that
the data that has been collected is protected in an appropriate manner and that the ethnicity data is processed,
as a rule, in such a manner that data subjects are not identifiable, bearing in mind the principles contained in
the Committee of Ministers’ Recommendation No. (97) 18 concerning the protection of personal data collected
and processed for statistical purposes. In this respect, the Advisory Committee considers it important that Ukraine
pursues its plans to improve its legislation in this sphere.
25. Finally, the Advisory Committee underlines that, bearing in mind the right of
equality before the law and of equal protection of the law contained in Article 4 of the Framework Convention,
there should be no undue differences between the treatment of persons belonging to different national minorities
as far as the collection of ethnicity data by the law-enforcement bodies or other authorities is concerned.
Article 4
26. The Advisory Committee notes that there exist general anti-discrimination
provisions in the Constitution of Ukraine as well as in the new Criminal Code, which entered into force in
September 2001, but that there are no detailed and comprehensive civil and/or administrative law provisions
pertaining to discrimination in specific fields. Furthermore, the applicability of the general provisions that
exist e.g. in the Labour Code of 1997 is restricted to citizens only. The Advisory Committee is of the opinion
that it would be desirable to develop such legislation in order to protect, in a comprehensive manner, individuals
from discrimination by both public authorities and private entities.
27. The Advisory Committee notes that a provision contained in Article 24 of the
Constitution stipulating that there shall be no privileges based on ethnic origin has been at times used in public
discussions as an argument against the introduction of special measures for the benefit of persons belonging to
national minorities aimed at promoting full and effective equality. This has been the case for example in the
context of public discussions on the electoral rules aimed at effective participation of persons belonging to
national minorities in decision-making processes. The Advisory Committee stresses that, pursuant to Article 4,
paragraph 3, of the Framework Convention, such measures must not be considered to be an act of discrimination
and that additional steps are needed to inform the officials concerned and the public at large of the applicable principles.
28. With regard to practice concerning implementation of anti-discrimination
legislation, the Advisory Committee notes that the officials concerned have very limited information available.
It is disconcerting that the authorities are not in a position to provide information on the number and nature of such
cases. In such circumstances, it is impossible to evaluate the effectiveness of the current mechanisms and to
examine to what extent the principles contained in Article 4 of the Framework Convention are being implemented.
It is therefore imperative that the monitoring of developments in this field be intensified.
29. The Advisory Committee notes that ensuring full and effective equality has been
particularly difficult with respect to Crimean Tatars, who continue to face wide-ranging difficulties in economic,
social, political and cultural life. The Advisory Committee is of the opinion that the authorities should continue
to pay increasing attention to their situation, including in the context of the on-going work to improve the
legislative framework touching upon Crimean Tatars and national minorities in general. In this context, it welcomes
the fact that there has recently been progress in solving the problems related to citizenship, which have been
a major obstacle in the enjoyment of full and effective equality by a large number of Crimean Tatars and by other
persons deported during the Soviet era and their descendants, including Armenians, Bulgarians, Greeks, and
Germans (hereinafter: “formerly deported people”). The Advisory Committee underlines that, equally, the authorities
of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea should address the concerns of the Crimean Tatars and other formerly
deported people in an increasingly vigorous manner, including through comprehensive programmes and strategies
aimed at promoting full and effective equality in various fields.
30. The Advisory Committee considers that Ukraine has not been able to secure full
and effective equality between the majority population and Roma and that the situation of Roma remains difficult
in such fields as employment and housing (see also related points under Article 15). These problems are exacerbated
by the unsatisfactory situation of Roma in the educational system (see related comments under Article 12).
The Advisory Committee is of the opinion that these issues merit increasing attention.
31. The Advisory Committee notes that the Parliamentary Ombudsman has taken some
measures to counter discrimination against Roma. The fact that the Parliamentary Ombudsman intends to step up her
work on the protection of national minorities in general is to be welcomed as it is likely to contribute to
the implementation of Article 4 and other provisions of the Framework Convention.
Article 5
32. Article 6 of the Law on National Minorities guarantees cultural autonomy for
national minorities. This is however formulated only in an extremely general fashion, and the Advisory Committee
considers that the content and the reach of this concept would merit being defined and developed in more detail.
At the same time, the Advisory Committee recognises that some related practical measures have been taken. The Advisory
Committee welcomes in particular the financial support that the authorities allocate for projects of persons
belonging to national minorities aimed at maintaining and developing their culture and at preserving their identity.
The Advisory Committee notes in particular that the funds allocated by the Ministry of Culture for such projects
have reportedly been increased despite financial constraints.
33. With a view to the fact that the new State Committee for Nationalities and
Migration has been given a number of relevant responsibilities in this field, the Advisory Committee trusts
that the new allocation of tasks will be pursued in a manner that ensures the continuity of the important initiatives
that are already being carried out.
34. As regards the methods of allocation of such financial support, the Advisory
Committee considers it important that representatives of national minorities are involved in the decision-making
process. It therefore hopes that the ad hoc initiatives that have been taken, for example by the Ministry of
Culture, to ensure such involvement are developed and consolidated further. Furthermore, the end result should be
such that it ensures a better balance between allocation for various regions and that it takes into account also
numerically small minorities as well as those that are dispersed within Ukraine.
Article 6
35. The Advisory Committee notes that, in general, a spirit of tolerance and
inter-ethnic dialogue prevails in Ukraine. Nevertheless, disputes related to language issues have caused tension
in Ukraine and stirred statements and actions, including by certain politicians that do not reflect the principles
contained in Article 6 of the Framework Convention. This pertains in particular to the debates surrounding
inter-relations between the Ukrainian language and the Russian language and to the debates on legislative initiatives
in this sphere. The Advisory Committee believes that the authorities’ attitudes, statements and measures vis-à-vis
the language issues can be instrumental in promoting a measured approach to the questions at issue.
36. The Advisory Committee notes with concern that societal attitudes towards
Roma remain negative, and sociological studies suggest that the prejudices towards Roma are markedly more widespread
than towards persons belonging to other national minorities. The Advisory Committee believes that it would be
helpful to design further initiatives aimed at promoting inter-cultural dialogue between Roma and others.
37. The Advisory Committee notes with concern that there have been incidents of
discrimination and ill-treatment of Roma, including by law-enforcement officials, which have been reported
inter alia by the Parliamentary Ombudsman. It is also concerned about credible reports about discrimination
and hostility, including by law-enforcement officials, concerning asylum-seekers and other persons who have arrived
in Ukraine relatively recently. In this connection, the Advisory Committee recalls that Article 6 of the Framework
Convention has a wide personal scope of application, covering also asylum-seekers and persons belonging to
other groups that have not traditionally inhabited the country concerned. The Advisory Committee deeply regrets that
there appears to be some reluctance within the law-enforcement bodies to acknowledge and examine these problems,
and it urges the authorities to increase the vigour with which these incidents are investigated and prosecuted.
38. The Advisory Committee regrets that there have been some cases of vandalism of
religious sites of minorities in various parts of Ukraine. While acknowledging that this is not a widespread
phenomenon, the Advisory Committee expresses the wish that the Government continues to pay careful attention to the
prevention as well as investigation and prosecution of such incidents. The Advisory Committee also notes that
there is a certain amount of inter-confessional tension in Crimea, which merits continuous vigilance from the
authorities concerned.
39. In the media field, the Advisory Committee notes that, despite reported
improvements, information is still being presented by some media outlets in a manner, which is likely to strengthen
the stereotypes associated with Roma, Jews and persons belonging to certain other minorities. At the same time, the
Advisory Committee welcomes the fact that, at least in some instances, sanctions have been imposed upon newspapers
publishing anti-semitic articles. The Advisory Committee considers that training activities should be expanded
in this field, bearing in mind the principles contained in Committee of Ministers’ Recommendation No. (97) 21 on
the media and the promotion of a culture of tolerance.
Article 7
40. The Advisory Committee recalls that Article 26 of the Constitution provides
that foreigners and stateless persons who are in Ukraine on legal grounds enjoy the same rights and freedoms and
also bear the same duties as citizens of Ukraine, with the exceptions established by the Constitution, laws or
international treaties ratified by Ukraine. At the same time, a number of laws pertaining to the rights and freedoms
guaranteed in Article 7 of the Framework Convention, including freedom of expression, regularly refer to “citizens”
as the subjects of the rights and freedoms in question. Bearing in mind that this may have an impact on the implementation
of the principles of the Framework Convention with respect to persons belonging to national minorities, the
Advisory Committee considers that the use of such a formulation should be curtailed through the on-going legislative
work so as to ensure that there are no undue limitations on the scope of the rights and freedoms at issue.
Article 8
41. On the basis of the information currently at its disposal, the Advisory
Committee considers that the implementation of this article does not give rise to any specific observations
(note, however, the related points raised under Article 6 of the present opinion).
Article 9
42. With regard to the print media, the Advisory Committee notes that freedom of
persons belonging to national minorities to receive and impart information and ideas in their language without
interference by public authorities is largely respected in Ukraine and it is guaranteed, e.g. in Article 5 of the
Law on Print Media. A considerable number of newspapers and other publications are published in the languages of
national minorities, although financial difficulties are a major obstacle in particular with respect to the media of
numerically small and dispersed minorities. At the same time, the Advisory Committee stresses that the problems
pertaining to freedom of the media and the rights and situation of journalists in general may also affect the
environment surrounding the print and other media published by persons belonging to national minorities and that
the authorities should be vigilant in protecting these rights and freedoms and addressing related concerns. The Advisory
Committee also underlines that the system of registration of newspapers and other print media should be carried out
in a manner that fully protects freedom of the press and does not hinder the creation and use of printed media by
persons belonging to national minorities.
43. With respect to the electronic media, the Advisory Committee notes that Article
6 the Law on National Minorities provides for the right of persons belonging to national minorities to “satisfy
their needs in the field of mass media”. At the same time, Article 9 of the Law on Television and Radio Broadcasting
stipulates that TV/radio organisations shall broadcast in the official language but that “programs beamed on certain
regions may be in the language of the numerically prevalent local ethnic minority in the regions where national
minorities live compactly”. While recognising that Ukraine can legitimately demand broadcasting licensing of broadcasting
enterprises and that the need to promote the official language can be one of the factors to be taken into account in that
context, an overall exclusion of the use of the languages of national minorities in the nation-wide public
service and private broadcasting sectors is not compatible with Article 9 of the Framework Convention, bearing in mind
inter alia the size of the population concerned and the fact that a large number of persons belonging to national
minorities reside outside areas of compact residency.
44. The Advisory Committee acknowledges that, in practice, a level of flexibility
prevails in terms of the interpretation of Article 9 as regards broadcasting at the state-level and that, as a result,
broadcasting in languages other than the official language appears to be tolerated to a certain degree, albeit not
encouraged, by the authorities concerned, as far as private broadcasting is concerned. The Advisory Committee considers
it important that a maximum level of flexibility is maintained pending amendments to the relevant legislation.
45. The fact that licenses can be granted for broadcasting in a minority language
in regions where national minorities live compactly is in itself positive, although the provision falls short
of encouraging such broadcasting. The Advisory Committee further notes that the term “compactly” is not defined in
any manner in the legislation, and this fact has caused a level of legal uncertainty and, as a result, this crucial
matter is largely at the discretion of the authority responsible for licensing decisions, namely the National
Television and Radio Council.
46. The Advisory Committee further notes that, when taking its licensing decisions,
the National Television and Radio Council has imposed specific language-related quota for broadcasting in various
regions, indicating what percentage of the programming must be in the Ukrainian language. The Advisory Committee considers
that, bearing in mind its implications for persons belonging to national minorities and the fact that excessive quotas
may impair the implementation of the rights contained in Article 9 of Framework Convention, this practice needs
to be implemented with caution. Furthermore, it would need to be rooted in a more precise legislative basis than
what is contained in the above-quoted provision of Article 9 of the Law on Television and Radio Broadcasting.
47. In the light of the foregoing, the Advisory Committee considers that Ukraine
should review the provisions pertaining to the use of the languages of national minorities in nation-wide and
regional broadcasting in its Law on Television and Radio Broadcasting, with a view to clarifying them and to
ensuring that they are fully compatible with the principles contained in Article 9 of the Framework Convention.
48. While regretting the aforementioned shortcomings in the pertinent legislation,
the Advisory Committee welcomes the fact that, in practice, a number of radio and TV broadcasters use minority
languages at the regional level, although scarce resources are a continuous problem. At the same time, there is
scope for improvement inter alia with respect to TV and radio broadcasting in the Crimean Tatar language,
and the Advisory Committee regrets the reports that the time allocated for broadcasting in this language
has recently been reduced in the public service TV and radio in Crimea. In this connection, the Advisory Committee
also notes that the receipt of such broadcasting is technically impossible in some parts of Crimea, including in some
settlements of Crimean Tatars. It therefore considers it important that the authorities step up their efforts
to facilitate minorities’ access to the media in particular in Crimea.
Article 10
49. The Advisory Committee notes that the existing legislation in Ukraine, notably
the Law on National Minorities and the Law on Languages, provide for the right of persons belonging to national
minorities to use their languages orally and in writing. There have however been certain initiatives, notably at
the local level, to introduce norms that would limit this right, including in the private sphere. These include
e.g. an unsuccessful attempt by local authorities in Lviv to introduce restrictions on the use of the Russian
language in 2000. The Advisory Committee urges the authorities to underline the importance of honouring the right
in question and to ensure that no such initiatives are implemented is so far as they would not be compatible with
Article 10 or other provisions of the Framework Convention.
50. The Advisory Committee notes that there are plans to adopt a new law on
languages, which would seek inter alia to promote the use of the Ukrainian language. In this connection,
the Advisory Committee would like to stress that, while the aim to protect the official language is a legitimate
one, it is instrumental that this protection is carried out in a manner that fully protects the rights contained
in Articles 10, 11 and other pertinent provisions of the Framework Convention.
51. As far as the right of persons belonging to national minorities to use their
language in relations with administrative authorities is concerned, the Advisory Committee notes that Article 5
of the Law on Languages provides that citizens have the right to address public bodies “in Ukrainian or another
language of their work, in Russian or in a language acceptable to the parties”. The Advisory Committee considers
that this provision contains far-reaching guarantees for the implementation of Article 10 paragraph 2, of the
Framework Convention as far as persons speaking Russian are concerned. However, it implies more limited guarantees
for the persons speaking other languages of national minorities considering that for them the right to address
administrative authorities in their language appears to require either that the language in question is used as
a working language of the said body or that the official concerned agrees to the use of the language. At the same
time, Article 8 of the Law on National Minorities and Article 3 of the Law on Languages provide that, as a rule,
a minority language can be used as a working language of various public bodies in the localities where a minority
constitutes a majority. It follows that the legal threshold for the right to use a minority language other than
Russian in contacts with administrative authorities is too high from the point of Article 10 of the Framework
Convention and that it depends largely on the decision of the authorities/bodies concerned.
52. As concerns practice, the Advisory Committee is pleased to note that de
facto the use of certain minority languages, such as Russian, Hungarian and Romanian, is accepted in
contacts with administrative authorities in a number of municipalities inhabited by a substantial number of persons
belonging to the national minorities concerned. The aforementioned legal threshold constitutes, however, an
obstacle in a number of regions, in particular with respect to persons belonging to minorities, such as the
Crimean Tatars, who, while residing in certain areas in substantial numbers, are not numerous enough to constitute
a majority in any municipality.
53. Bearing in mind the foregoing paragraphs, the Advisory Committee considers that
the issue of the use of minority languages in contacts with administrative authorities should be reviewed in the
context of the on-going legislative reform - which is also linked to the pending ratification of the European
Charter for Regional or Minority Languages - with a view to strengthening the implementation of Article 10 of
the Framework Convention. This review should draw on the experiences that have been gained in those areas where
the possibility to address administrative authorities in a minority language already exists in practice.
Article 11
54. The Advisory Committee notes with satisfaction that there exist legislative
provisions, in particular in the Law on National Minorities and in the Law on Languages, aimed at protecting the
right of persons belonging to national minorities to use their surnames and first names in a minority language and
the right of official recognition of them.
55. The Advisory Committee has, however, received disturbing reports suggesting
that, until recently, an amended Ukrainian version of the names has in some cases been imposed upon persons
belonging to national minorities. These reports are particularly disconcerting when the situation has led to the
recording of the Ukrainian version of the name in officials records and documents, such as passports, without
an explicit prior approval of the person concerned. The Advisory Committee urges the Government to review the situation
and take necessary measures to correct any shortcomings in administrative practice that may still remain.
56. The Advisory Committee is aware of particular challenges with respect to the
formerly deported people, arising from the fact that the original names of the persons concerned were often
distorted as a result of the deportation. The Advisory Committee recalls that pursuant to Article 11 persons
whose names have been changed by force should be entitled to revert to them. While recognising the administrative
and linguistic difficulties involved, the Advisory Committee hopes that Ukraine makes particular efforts to record
names of returnees as close to their original form as possible.
57. The Advisory Committee notes that Article 38 of the Law on Languages provides a
possibility to introduce place names in a minority language if the minority in question constitutes a majority in
the locality at issue. While recognising that this provision has enabled certain commendable practices e.g. with
respect to the use of Hungarian language place names in a number of towns in Transcarpathia, the Advisory Committee
notes that the numerical threshold contained in the said provision is such that it constitutes an obstacle with
respect to certain minority languages in areas traditionally inhabited by substantial numbers of persons belonging
to a national minority. This problem is particularly pertinent for formerly deported people of Crimea, notably the Crimean Tatars. The Advisory Committee
is therefore of the opinion that the scope of the said provision should be
revised in the context of the on-going legislative reform.
Article 12
58. The Advisory Committee finds it laudable that the Ukrainian legislation,
including Article 3 of the Law on General Secondary Education, identifies multiculturalism and mutual respect
among ethnic groups as one of the bases of the educational system and that the Ministry of Education has issued
a textbook on human rights with a section devoted to the rights of minorities. The Advisory Committee has however
been informed that the above-mentioned principles are still not fully reflected in practice and that inter alia
the contents of history textbooks do not always portray adequately the role played and the positive contributions
made by national minorities. Bearing in mind the importance of the matter, the Advisory Committee considers
that this question should be under constant review by the authorities concerned, who should draw on the principles
contained in Committee of Ministers’ Recommendation No. (2001) 15 on history teaching in twenty-first-century Europe.
59. The Advisory Committee notes that there have been difficulties in ensuring
adequate access to textbooks for persons belonging to national minorities. Recently, however, there have been
improvements in this respect with respect to certain textbooks, including in the Romanian and Hungarian languages.
It is commendable that a number of text-books in minority languages are issued free-of-charge, which is not
always the case for other text-books in Ukraine due to financial constraints. In spite of these improvements,
access to textbooks remains an issue of concern inter alia for the Crimean Tatars, and the Advisory
Committee considers it important that any remaining shortcomings are addressed and that adequate financing is
allocated for this purpose.
60. The Advisory Committee understands that the attendance figures for Roma
children remain low at all levels of education. This is an issue that merits increasing attention from the
authorities, who should design new initiatives in this sphere in accordance with the principles, contained
in Committee of Ministers’ Recommendation No. (2000) 4 on the education of Roma/Gypsy children in Europe.
61. As concerns higher education, the Advisory Committee notes that persons
belonging to the Romanian minority have called for a creation of a multicultural university in the Chernivtsy
oblast. The Advisory Committee is of the opinion that the feasibility of this initiative should be considered
in dialogue with those concerned together with other options aimed at promoting equal opportunities for access
to education at all levels for persons belonging to Romanian and other national minorities.
Article 13
62. Based on the information currently at its disposal, the Advisory Committee
considers that the implementation of this article does not give rise to any specific observations.
Article 14
63. The Advisory Committee takes note of the legislation, including Article 53
paragraph 5 of the Constitution and in Articles 25 – 29 of the Law on Languages, that guarantees for persons
belonging to national minorities the right to receive instruction in their language or to study their language.
While these guarantees are to be welcomed, they are formulated in a general fashion and the legislation at issue
contains no precise numerical or other threshold that would trigger the introduction of instruction in, or of, a
minority language in a school. The Advisory Committee has however been informed that such thresholds have been
established through an Instructive Letter of the Ministry of Education, dated 7 October 1996, which provides for
the creation of classes or groups with a minority language as a language of instruction upon a request by parents
of at least 8-10 pupils in non-rural areas and of 5 pupils in rural areas. In so far as this threshold entails an
obligation of the authorities to organise such teaching, the Advisory Committee finds that it represents a commendable
interpretation of a “sufficient demand” – the relevant term contained in Article 14 paragraph 2 of the Framework
Convention. The Advisory Committee is, however, of the view that it would be preferable, including for the purposes
of legal certainty and accessibility, that more precision on the reach of the applicable rights would be included
also at the legislative level. In the meantime, there appears to be a need to inform the persons concerned more
consistently about the existence and the content of the said threshold, as many of them appear not to be familiar with it.
64. As regards the practical implementation of Article 14 of the Framework
Convention, the Advisory Committee notes that the share of the instruction in the Ukrainian language has considerably
increased in recent years at all levels of education while in particular the share of the Russian language teaching has
decreased. The Advisory Committee agrees that a reform of the system of language education was warranted, taking into
account inter alia the increasing demand for Ukrainian language teaching and the fact that the minority language
system, while providing an extensive network of schools with Russian as the language of instruction, did not
fully take into account the existing needs with respect to other minority languages, such as Bulgarian and Polish.
65. The Advisory Committee underlines that the reform should not result in undue
limitation of the rights of persons belonging to national minorities under Article 14 of the Framework Convention,
and that the above-mentioned threshold should be applied in an equitable manner in relation to all languages of
persons belonging to national minorities, including the Russian language and those of numerically smaller minorities.
A factor that may complicate reaching this aim is the fact that the Cabinet of Ministers has, through its Resolution
No. 1004 of 21 June 2000 introducing amendments to the “integral actions aimed at the comprehensive development and
functioning of the Ukrainian language”, identified as one of its goals to bring the network of pre-school and general
education institutions “into compliance with the national composition of the population in regions and the needs
of citizens”. The Advisory Committee considers that the Ukrainian authorities should maintain “sufficient demand” as
the main criteria for the introduction of minority language education rather than the ethnic composition of the region as issue.
66. The Advisory Committee believes that one important safeguard for ensuring that
reforms in the field of education are in line with the Framework Convention is that close consultations are held
with those concerned, including with persons belonging to national minorities. In this respect, the Advisory Committee
recalls that in the past years there have been concerns, including amongst persons belonging to the Romanian and Hungarian
minorities, that certain pivotal reform initiatives have been designed without proper consultations, and it welcomes
the commitment of the authorities to ensure that any future initiatives will be designed through an open process.
67. The Advisory Committee notes that there are specific challenges relating to the
implementation of Article 14 of the Framework Convention in Crimea, where the Russian language has been the dominant
language in a large majority of schools in contrast to the limited availability of instruction in other minority
languages and in Ukrainian. Following the return of formerly deported people, certain commendable efforts have been
made to introduce in particular the Crimean Tatar language as the language of instruction, but additional demands in
this respect have reportedly at times been challenged on economic grounds by local authorities. The Advisory
Committee recognises the economic constraints involved, but urges the authorities concerned to implement the above-mentioned
provision concerning introduction of instruction in a minority language whenever the established threshold is met.
68. The Advisory Committee has been informed that local authorities have in some
instances objected to the introduction of teaching in minorities languages, such as Polish, on the basis that
there are no qualified teachers. At the same time, central authorities take the view that adequate measures have
been taken in this respect. The Advisory Committee considers that this question merits being reviewed and, if necessary,
increasing attention needs to be paid to the question of teacher training.
Article 15
69. The Advisory Committee notes that the Law on National Minorities contains
general guarantees pertaining to the right of persons belonging to national minorities to participate in public
affairs. These provisions are however not always consistently reflected in the relevant sectoral legislation.
The Advisory Committee notes in this connection that Article 7, paragraphs 1 and 2, of the Law on Elections of
People’s Deputies of 1997 provided specific rules aimed at protecting national minorities in the context of
the drawing of constituency boundaries. The Advisory Committee notes that these provisions were commendable
albeit they were not always effectively implemented in practice. It is therefore regrettable that they were not
retained in the new Law on Elections, adopted in 2001. This constitutes a setback in the normative protection
of national minorities in Ukraine. The Advisory Committee expects that the idea reflected in these previously
applicable provisions is kept in mind in the administrative practice and that its re-introduction in the legislation
is considered by the authorities.
70. With respect to practice, the Advisory Committee notes that there are a number
of persons belonging to national minorities in the national Parliament and the importance of issues pertaining to
national minorities is to an extent reflected in the committee structure of Parliament. The situation is rather
different in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, where the representation of national minorities in the legislature
is a most contentious issue. Whereas in 1994 the Crimean Tatars had reserved seats in the said legislature, the present
legislation provides no such guarantees and as a result their presence has been drastically reduced. The Advisory
Committee finds the resulting situation regrettable. It is therefore pleased to note the question of improving the
representation of Crimean Tatars is currently being examined. The Advisory Committee finds this to be of great
importance and expects that these efforts will result in an effective participation of Crimean Tatars and other parts
of the population of Crimea in the elected bodies.
71. The Advisory Committee notes that the structure of state bodies dealing
with national minorities has been in constant flux in Ukraine over the past years. This has had a negative
impact on the effectiveness and consistency of the work done by the said bodies and on the way in which the
input of persons belonging to national minorities has been accommodated and put to use. The Advisory Committee
expects that the latest development, notably the establishment of a State Committee for Nationalities and Migration
by a Presidential decree on 13 September 2001, results in a more consolidated structure and working methods with
a maximum level of participation from persons belonging to national minorities and their associations.
72. The Advisory Committee considers that the establishment of the Council of
Representatives of Public Organisations of National Minorities by the President of Ukraine demonstrated commitment
to the consultation of national minorities. However, this body is convened only rarely, and it does not constitute
a forum for regular and frequent consultation and dialogue on issues pertaining to national minorities. The
Advisory Committee is therefore of the opinion that the working methods of the said body should be revised or
a new body established in order to promote such consultation and dialogue. In this connection, the authorities
should draw on the positive experience gained in the work of the Council of Representatives of the Crimean
Tatars. This body, set up by a presidential decree in May 1999, appears to be a well-functioning forum for
discussion on issues pertaining to Crimean Tatars, albeit many of the proposals developed therein are yet
to be fully implemented.
73. The Advisory Committee notes with concern the shortcomings that remain as
concerns the effective participation of persons belonging to national minorities in economic life, in particular
with respect to their access to the labour market. While recognising that unemployment is a problem affecting
society at large, it appears to affect disproportionately persons belonging to national minorities. This is
partially due to the fact that a large number of persons belonging to national minorities are concentrated
in areas with particularly severe economic difficulties such as Transcarpathia. The Advisory Committee welcomes
the initiatives that the Government has already launched to counter this phenomenon and believes that they
should be pursued decisively and expanded (see also related comments under Article 4). In this connection,
the Advisory Committee underlines that the collection of reliable data, broken down by age, gender and location,
is essential for effective monitoring of developments in this sphere.
74. With respect to Crimea, the Advisory Committee notes that the unemployment
rate amongst Crimean Tatars is extraordinarily high. It further considers that one of the key factors in ensuring
effective participation of persons belonging to formerly deported people in cultural, social, and economic
life is the issue of access to land. It is therefore essential that the authorities pursue its review of the
current situation with a view to designing a fair solution that fully secures the rights of the persons concerned.
75. The Advisory Committee welcomes the decision of the Constitutional Court,
adopted in November 2001, requesting the abolition of the system of local residency permits as unconstitutional.
This system obliged individuals to obtain from local authorities a residency permit in order to exercise fully
their rights in various fields such as employment and education. The Advisory Committee notes that persons belonging
to national minorities were often particularly vulnerable to the problems inherent in this system, which thereby
hampered the implementation of Article 15 and other articles of the Framework Convention e.g. in relation to Roma
and Crimean Tatars.
Article 16
76. Based on the information currently at its disposal, the Advisory Committee
considers that the implementation of this article does not give rise to any specific observations.
Article 17
77. The Advisory Committee notes that the introduction of visa requirements by a
number of neighbouring States of Ukraine is causing obstacles for persons belonging to national minorities. The Advisory
Committee supports the efforts of Ukraine to ensure with its neighbours that these visa requirements are implemented in
a manner that does not cause undue restrictions on the right of persons belonging to national minorities to
establish and maintain contacts across frontiers.
78. The Advisory Committee is concerned about the reported problems related to
travel documents of the students belonging to the Romanian minority wishing to pursue university studies in Romania.
It appears that a number of them have been denied access to this possibility because of a quota established for such
students. The Advisory Committee is therefore pleased to note that the authorities of Ukraine are examining the issue
and it hopes that a solution fully compatible with Article 17 is found.
Article 18
79. The Advisory Committee welcomes the fact that Ukraine is party to a number of treaties
and cultural agreements touching upon the protection of persons belonging to national minorities and that bilateral commissions
examining their implementation have been set up with Germany, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia.
Article 19
80. Based on the information currently at its disposal, the Advisory Committee
considers that the implementation of this article does not give rise to any specific observations.
IV. MAIN FINDINGS AND COMMENTS OF THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
81. The Advisory Committee believes that the main findings and comments set out below, could
be helpful in a continuing dialogue between the Government and national minorities, to which the Advisory Committee
stands ready to contribute.
In respect of Article 3
82. The Advisory Committee finds that it would be possible to consider the
inclusion of persons belonging to other groups in the application of the Framework Convention on an article-by-article
basis and considers that Ukraine should consider this issue in consultation with those concerned.
83. The Advisory Committee finds that the questionnaire on the basis of
which the December 2001 census was conducted contained a mandatory question on individuals’ “nationality/ethnic
origin”, which is not compatible with Article 3 of the Framework Convention. It considers that Ukraine
should revise this practice with a view to making answering such a question optional.
84. The Advisory Committee finds that law-enforcement officials collect
information on persons’ ethnicity in a manner that is not compatible with the Framework Convention. It considers
that Ukraine should revise such practices in order to ensure that they are fully compatible with the principles
laid down in Article 3 of the Framework Convention.
In respect of Article 4
85. The Advisory Committee finds that there are no detailed and comprehensive
civil and/or administrative law provisions pertaining to discrimination in specific fields and considers
that Ukraine should develop such legislation in order to protect, in a comprehensive manner, individuals from
discrimination by both public authorities and private entities.
86. The Advisory Committee finds that the government officials have
very limited information available on the practice concerning implementation of anti-discrimination legislation
and considers that monitoring of developments in this field needs to be intensified.
87. The Advisory Committee finds that ensuring full and effective equality
has been particularly difficult with respect to Crimean Tatars and Roma and considers that the Ukrainian
authorities should pay increasing attention to these issues.
In respect of Article 5
88. The Advisory Committee finds that tasks pertaining to Government
support for national minorities have recently been re-allocated and considers that the authorities
should ensure the continuity of the implementation of the on-going important activities and that future support
is provided in a balanced manner.
89. The Advisory Committee finds that there exist initiatives to involve
national minorities in the decision-making processes concerning allocation of financial support for projects
of persons belonging to national minorities and considers that such initiatives should be developed
and consolidated further.
In respect of Article 6
90. The Advisory Committee finds that a spirit of tolerance and inter-ethnic
dialogue generally prevails in Ukraine, but disputes related to language issues have caused tension. It considers
that the authorities’ attitudes, statements and measures vis-à-vis the language issues can be instrumental
in promoting a measured approach to the questions at issue.
91. The Advisory Committee finds that societal attitudes towards Roma remain
negative and considers that it would be helpful to design further initiatives aimed at promoting inter-cultural
dialogue between Roma and others.
92. The Advisory Committee finds that there are reports of discrimination
and ill-treatment, including by law-enforcement officials, of Roma as well as discrimination and hostility concerning
asylum-seekers and other persons who have arrived in Ukraine relatively recently. The Advisory Committee considers
that the authorities should increase the vigour with which these incidents are investigated and prosecuted.
93. The Advisory Committee finds that there have been some cases of vandalism of religious
sites of minorities and that there is a certain amount of inter-confessional tension in Crimea. The Advisory Committee
considers that the authorities should pay careful attention to these issues.
94. The Advisory Committee finds that, despite reported improvements,
information is still being presented by some media outlets in a manner, which is likely to strengthen the
stereotypes associated with Roma, Jews and persons belonging to certain other minorities. The Advisory Committee
considers that in order to address this issue, training activities should be expanded in this field.
In respect of Article 7
95. The Advisory Committee finds that a number of laws pertaining to the
rights and freedoms guaranteed in Article 7 of the Framework Convention refer to “citizens” as the subjects of
the rights and freedoms in question. The Advisory Committee considers that the use of such a formulation
should be curtailed through the on-going legislative work.
In respect of Article 9
96. The Advisory Committee finds that a number of newspapers and other
publications are published in the languages of national minorities but problems pertaining to freedom of the
media and the rights and situation of journalists in general may also affect the environment surrounding the
media of persons belonging to national minorities. The Advisory Committee considers that the authorities
should be vigilant in protecting the rights and freedom at issue.
97. The Advisory Committee finds that the Law on Television and Radio
Broadcasting curtails the use of the languages of national minorities in the nation-wide public service and
private broadcasting sectors in a manner that is not compatible with Article 9 of the Framework Convention
and gives large discretion to the authority responsible for licensing. The Advisory Committee considers
that Ukraine should review the provisions pertaining to the use of the languages of national minorities in
the law at issue, with a view to clarifying them and to ensuring that they are fully compatible with the
principles contained in Article 9 of the Framework Convention.
98. The Advisory Committee finds that, in practice, a number of radio
and TV broadcasters use minority languages at the regional level, but the availability of broadcasting in the
Crimean Tatar language is limited. The Advisory Committee considers that the authorities should step
up their efforts to facilitate minorities’ access to the media in particular in Crimea.
In respect of Article 10
99. The Advisory Committee finds that there are initiatives to adopt new
norms pertaining to use of languages and considers that Ukraine should ensure that such initiatives are
pursued in a manner that fully protects the rights contained in Articles 10, 11 and other pertinent provisions
of the Framework Convention.
100. The Advisory Committee find that the Law on Languages provides
far-reaching guarantees for the use of Russian language in relations with administrative authorities but implies
more limited guarantees for the persons speaking other languages of national minorities. The Advisory Committee
considers that this issue should be reviewed in the context of the on-going legislative reform with
a view to strengthening the implementation of Article 10 of the Framework Convention.
In respect of Article 11
101. The Advisory Committee finds that, despite the existing legislative
guarantees in this sphere, there are reports suggesting that a Ukrainian version of the names has in some cases
been imposed upon persons belonging to national minorities. The Advisory Committee considers that the
Government should review the situation and take necessary measures to correct any shortcomings in administrative practice.
102. The Advisory Committee finds that the numerical threshold for the
introduction of place names in a minority language is such that it constitutes an obstacle with respect to
certain minority languages in areas traditionally inhabited by substantial numbers of persons belonging to
a national minority. The Advisory Committee considers that the scope of the legal provision at issue
should be revised in the context of the on-going legislative reform.
In respect of Article 12
103. The Advisory Committee finds that the principles of multiculturalism
and mutual respect among ethnic groups are reportedly not fully reflected in practice in the educational system
and considers that this question should be under constant review by the authorities concerned.
104. The Advisory Committee finds that, despite recent improvements,
access to textbooks remains an issue of concern with respect to some national minorities and considers
that Ukraine should address any remaining shortcomings in this sphere.
105. The Advisory Committee finds that the attendance figures for Roma
children remain low at all levels of education and considers that Ukraine should design new initiatives
in this sphere.
106. The Advisory Committee finds that persons belonging to the Romanian
minority have called for a creation of a multicultural university in the Chernivtsy oblast and considers
that this initiative should be considered in dialogue with those concerned.
In respect of Article 14
107. The Advisory Committee finds that legislation does not provide precise
numerical or other thresholds that would trigger the introduction of instruction in, or of, a minority language in
a school, although such criteria have been established by the ministry concerned. The Advisory Committee considers
that it would be advisable to include more precision on the reach of the applicable rights also at the legislative level.
108. The Advisory Committee finds that Ukraine has introduced reforms in its
system of minority language education. The Advisory Committee considers that the Ukrainian authorities
should pursue such reforms in consultation with the minorities concerned, and that Ukraine should maintain
“sufficient demand” as the main criteria for the introduction of minority language education rather than the
ethnic composition of the region at issue.
In respect of Article 15
109. The Advisory Committee finds that the specific rules aimed at protecting
national minorities in the context of the drawing of constituency boundaries were not retained in the new Law on
Elections, adopted in 2001. The Advisory Committee considers that the idea reflected in the previously
applicable provisions should be kept in mind in the administrative practice and its re-introduction in the legislation
should be considered.
110. The Advisory Committee finds that, following the abolition of reserved seats
in the legislature of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, the presence of Crimean Tatars in the said body has
been drastically reduced. The Advisory Committee considers that Ukraine should pursue its efforts to improve
this situation.
111. The Advisory Committee finds that the structure of state bodies dealing with
national minorities has been in constant flux in Ukraine and considers that Ukraine should ensure a more consolidated
structure and working methods with a maximum level of participation from persons belonging to national minorities.
112. The Advisory Committee finds that there remain shortcomings as
concerns the effective participation of persons belonging to national minorities in economic life and considers
that the initiatives that the Government has already launched to address these shortcomings should be pursued decisively
and expanded.
In respect of Article 17
113. The Advisory Committee finds that the introduction of visa requirements
by a number of neighbouring States of Ukraine is causing obstacles for persons belonging to national minorities.
The Advisory Committee considers that Ukraine should pursue its efforts to ensure with its neighbours
that these visa requirements are implemented in a manner that does not cause undue restrictions on the right
of persons belonging to national minorities to establish and maintain contacts across frontiers.
114. The Advisory Committee finds that there are reports of problems
concerning travel documents of students belonging to the Romanian minority wishing to pursue university studies
in Romania. The Advisory Committee considers that Ukraine should pursue the examination of the issue
with a view to finding a solution fully compatible with Article 17 of the Framework Convention.
V. CONCLUDING REMARKS
115. The Advisory Committee considers that the concluding remarks below reflect
the main thrust of the present opinion and that they could therefore serve as the basis for the corresponding
conclusions and recommendations to be adopted by the Committee of Ministers.
116. As concerns the implementation of the Framework Convention, the Advisory
Committee considers that Ukraine has made commendable efforts in terms of designing legislation of a general
nature for the protection of national minorities. Ukraine has also demonstrated commitment to the implementation
of this legislation, notwithstanding a number of remaining difficulties.
117. There are nevertheless shortcomings in the present legislative framework
pertaining to the implementation of the Framework Convention, including in the field of electronic media. There
have also been certain setbacks in the commendable normative protection designed for national minorities, notably
in the electoral legislation.
118. As regards practice, the Advisory Committee notes that a spirit of tolerance
and inter-ethnic dialogue generally prevails in Ukraine, but disputes related to language issues have caused
tension. In order to ease such tension, it is crucial that the pending legislative and practical initiatives in
this sphere are pursued in full compliance with the Framework Convention.
119. Bearing in mind the reports concerning de facto discrimination of
persons belonging to certain national minorities, such as Roma, the Advisory Committee finds it important that
Ukraine improves the manner in which such cases are monitored and addressed by law-enforcement and other authorities concerned.
120. The Advisory Committee believes that the implementation of the Framework
Convention has not been fully successful as regards Crimean Tatars and other formerly deported people,
inter alia, in terms of their participation in cultural, social and economic life and in public affairs,
although the increasing efforts of the central Government have resulted in certain improvements in this respect.
121. The Advisory Committee is of the opinion that the implementation of the
Framework Convention in the educational sphere merits particular attention from the authorities with a view
to ensuring that the on-going reforms in this sphere do not result in undue limitations on the existing right
of persons belonging to national minorities to receive instruction in and/or of their languages.
1The Advisory Committee decided at its 12th
meeting on 30 November 2001, to introduce certain changes to the structure of its opinions. It decided to discontinue
the practice of submitting a “Proposal for conclusions and recommendations by the Committee of Ministers” (Section V of
the earlier opinions) and to introduce a new section IV, entitled “Main findings and comments of the Advisory Committee”.
The Advisory Committee also decided to submit its “Concluding remarks” in Section V instead of Section IV.
These changes are effective as from 30 November 2001 and they apply to all subsequent opinions adopted in
the first monitoring cycle. These changes have been made in the light of the first country-specific decisions
on the implementation of the Framework Convention adopted by the Committee of Ministers in October 2001.
2According to the state report, 27.3% of the
population of Ukraine belong to “nationalities” other than Ukrainian at the time of the 1989 census. The state
report notes that the numerically largest of these are, Belorusians (440,000), Bulgarians (223,800), Hungarians
(163,100), Jews (486,300), Moldovans (342,500), Poles (219,200), Romanians (134,800), Russians (11,400,000) and,
as a result of their return to Crimea mainly in the past decade, the Crimean Tatars (the state report estimates
that the number of returned Crimean Tatars is 250,000). According to the 1989 census, there are 47,900 Roma
in Ukraine, but the real number of Roma is widely considered to be significantly higher.
|
