“Being occupied as a privilege” (excerpt), 2020

[..]

The dominating language in the USSR was Russian, and it was heavily promoted in schools and public life at the expense of local languages.

[..]


Document data: 24.06.2020. Link: https://euvsdisinfo.eu/being-occupied-as-a-privilege_baltic_states/

Publisher’s notes: as the data from Latvia itself show, Latvian was dominating in Latvia’s schools at the end of Soviet rule. Languages of smallers minorities like Belarusian and Polish were restricted during the Soviet rule, indeed, – but not just in favour of Russian. Parents could also send their children to schools with instruction in Latvian. For some documents on education from Soviet Latvia, see in the Imagery section.

Constitutional Court judgment on kindergartens (excerpts), 2020

18. 3. [..] The Constitutional Court concludes that it follows from the letters of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and Special Rapporteurs that those United Nations bodies did not have available, when elaborating those letters, a full information about the scope of the Regulation No. 716, which is being clarified in the present judgment. Those letters shall be considered as an invitation to dialogue between the Latvian government and the relevant United Nations bodies.

[..]

21. [..] Thus, in the circumstances of the present case, educatees belonging to the constituent nation and educatees belonging to national minorities do not form comparable groups.

Taking into account the above, the contested provisions in the relevant part are in conformity with Article 91 of the Constitution.


Document data: 19.06.2020. Case No. 2019-20-03. Link (in Latvian): http://www.satv.tiesa.gov.lv/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/2019-20-03_Spriedums-1.pdf

Opinion on minority education reforms (conclusions and excerpts on specific laws), 2020

II. Preliminary remarks

[..]

C. Recent amendments to the legislation on education in minority languages

1. March 2018 amendments to the Education Law and the General Education Law

36. On 22 March 2018, the Saeima adopted amendments to the Education Law and the General Education Law, which foresee a gradual transition to instruction in Latvian in both state and private schools of upper secondary education (grades 10 to 12) and an increase of the proportion of the Latvian language applied in minority education programmes implemented in state schools at the level of pre-school and basic education (grades 1 to 9).

[..]

41. Pursuant to Sections 9 and 41 of the Education Law and Section 43 of the General Education Law, as amended in March 2018, the mandatory proportions in the Latvian language will be as follows:

Grades 1-6: instruction will be offered in accordance with 3 models of education included in the guidelines for the state pre-school education or state basic education standard (see below § 55). In the minority education programme the minimum share of Latvian will be 50% of the total number of lessons in a school year.

Grades 7-9: in the minority education programme the minimum share of Latvian will be 80% (previously 60%) of the total number of lessons in a school year.

Grades 10-12: instruction will be offered exclusively in Latvian (previously 60%), with the exception that a school may include in the programme learning content linked to the minority native language and minority identity.

[..]

43. Prior to the March 2018 amendments, education in the state language was mandatory only in state schools. With the Law of 22 March 2018 amending the Education Law, the mandatory proportions regarding the use of Latvian are also applied to private schools of basic and secondary education.

[..]

2. June 2018 amendments to the Law on Higher Education Institutions

48. On 21 June 2018, the Saeima adopted amendments to the Law on Higher Education Institutions, which impose on private higher education institutions and colleges an obligation to implement their study programme in Latvian. This obligation was previously applied only to statefounded higher education institutions. Nevertheless, Section 56 para. 3 of the Law on Higher Education Institutions – as well as Section 9 para. 3 1 of the Education Law – provides for exceptions to this general rule:

“[…] The use of foreign languages in the implementation of study programmes shall be possible only in the following cases:

1) study programmes which are acquired by foreign students in Latvia, and study programmes, which are implemented within the scope of co-operation provided for in European Union programmes and international agreements may be implemented in the official languages of the European Union. For foreign students the acquisition of the official language shall be included in the study course compulsory amount if studies in Latvia are expected to be longer than six months or exceed 20 credit points;

2) not more than one-fifth of the credit point amount of a study programme may be implemented in the official languages of the European Union, taking into account that in this part final and State examinations may not be included, as well as the writing of qualification, bachelor and master’s thesis;

3) study programmes the implementation of which in foreign languages is necessary for the achievement of the aims of the study programme in conformity with the educational classification of the Republic of Latvia for such educational programme groups: language and cultural studies and language programmes. The licensing commission shall decide on the conformity of the study programme with the educational programme group;

4) joint study programmes may be implemented in the official languages of the European Union.” (emphasis added)

49. In accordance with these provisions, in state and private higher education institutions, instruction is possible only in Latvian and other EU official languages. Other languages which are not official languages of the EU such as Russian, Belarusian, Ukrainian and Yiddish can be the instruction language only in language and culture studies.

50. Pursuant to para. 49 of the Transitional Provisions of the Law on Higher Education Institutions, these amendments entered into force on 1 January 2019. Nonetheless, the higher education institutions and colleges, the language of implementation of study programmes of which fails to comply with Section 56 para. 3, have the right to continue the implementation of study programmes in the relevant language until 31 December 2022. After 1 January 2019, admission of students into study programmes which fail to comply with this provision is not allowed. However, the Latvian authorities informed the Venice Commission that by a judgment of 11 June 2020 the Constitutional Court of Latvia declared unconstitutional the June 2018 amendments to the Law on Higher Education Institutions.

3. November 2018 amendments – Regulations Nos 716 and 747 of the Cabinet of Ministers

51. On 21 November 2018, the Cabinet of Ministers adopted Regulation No. 716 on Guidelines for State Pre-School Education and Model Pre-School Education Programmes. Annex 2 to this Regulation presents a model programme for minority pre-school educational institutions. Annex 2 states, in its para. 9, that “[l]earning of the Latvian language is promoted throughout the entire pre-school education period by using a bilingual approach, which, depending on the child’s development, is implemented in collaboration between teachers, specialists and other staff of the educational institution, as well as using the Latvian language in everyday communication. For children aged five and above, Latvian is the main means of communication in play-based lessons, except specially organised activities with the aim of learning the national minority’s language and ethnic culture” (emphasis added). Pursuant to para. 8 of annex 2, the mandatory education content shall be planned and organized regardless of the child’s age ensuring that education content of the Latvian language is taught on a daily basis.

[..]

58. Several international organisations have expressed concerns over the recent amendments to the legislation on education due to the risk of causing undue restrictions on access to education in minority languages.21

21 See ACFC, Third Opinion on Latvia, 23 February 2018, §§ 23 and 151; UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Concluding observations on the combined sixth to twelfth periodic reports of Latvia, CERD/C/LVA/CO/6- 12, 30 August 2018, §§ 16-17; Letter of 29 August 2019 of the Chair of the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; Joint letters of 26 January 2018 and 24 September 2019 of the Special Rapporteur on the right to education, the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, and the Special Rapporteur on minority issues; Human rights comment of 29 October 2019 of the CoE Commissioner for Human Rights: Language policies should accommodate diversity, protect minority rights and defuse tensions; Letter of 1 March 2019 of the Chair of the Committee on Culture and Education of the European Parliament to the Prime Minister of Latvia.

[..]

IV. Conclusion

115. The Venice Commission examined the recent amendments to the Latvian legislation on education in minority languages, which are presented by the authorities as part of a long-standing reform of the education system, comprising gradual changes in the use of the state language and minority languages – especially Russian − in favour of the state language.

116. The Commission is aware of the specific historical developments that Latvia has gone through over the past decades and centuries and the impact on the linguistic situation in the country that these developments have had, resulting in a state of asymmetric bilingualism. The statistical data and other information provided by the education authorities of Latvia suggest that there might be a need in Latvia to foster mastering of the state language in particular amongst pupils attending minority education programmes. The Commission stresses that increasing the proportion of the use of the Latvian language in minority education programmes in order to improve proficiency of pupils attending such programmes is a legitimate aim.

117. Even though the Venice Commission is not in a position to determine the weight of the various reasons behind the lack of proficiency of pupils enrolled in minority education programmes, increasing the proportions of the use of Latvian in those programmes does not appear to be inappropriate to achieve the legitimate aim, i.e. to raise proficiency in Latvian amongst pupils concerned by the reform. That said, the reform can reach its objective only if it is coupled with additional measures necessary to provide schools implementing minority education programmes with appropriate teaching methodologies, educational materials as well as teachers who are proficient in Latvian.

118. While increasing the mandatory proportion of the Latvian language, the new legislation leaves ample room for instruction in minority languages at the level of basic education, and some room for such instruction in secondary education. This is to be welcomed. The answer to the question of whether the minority education system as redesigned by the recent amendments will or will not enable persons enrolled on these programmes to attain a high level of proficiency in their mother tongue depends on several factors, especially the availability and quality of teachers and teaching materials, etc.

119. However, the system introduced by the recent legislation for pre-school education needs to be reconsidered in order to ensure that persons belonging to national minorities will continue to enjoy the possibility of acquiring proficiency in their language, which is essential for the protection and promotion of the identity of minorities as well as for the preservation of the linguistic diversity within the Latvian society. In the opinion of the Commission, as long as Latvia ensures this possibility for all national minorities, it would be acceptable to privilege the teaching in some languages – i.e. EU official languages – which are at the same time languages of some national minorities. Furthermore, private schools should be allowed to provide education in minority languages. The Commission recalls that securing the right of persons belonging to minorities to preserve and develop their language and their ethnic and cultural identity is an obligation for Latvia stemming from its international commitments.

120. Even though the overall direction of the recent amendments subject to the present opinion is not a reason for concern, some of the changes are, nevertheless, open to criticism as they do not strike a fair balance between the protection of the rights of minorities and their languages and the promotion of the state language. In order to ensure such a balance, the Venice Commission recommends to:

  • amend Cabinet Regulation No. 716 in order to return to the previous “bilingual approach” in play-based lessons applied to the whole period of pre-school education;
  • take the necessary legislative and other measures to ensure that state schools offer a minority education programme whenever there is sufficient demand for it;
  • exempt private schools from the mandatory proportions of the use of the Latvian language applied to state schools implementing minority education programmes;
  • consider enlarging the possibilities for persons belonging to national minorities to have access to higher education in their minority language, either in their own higher education institutions, or at least in state higher education institutions;
  • constantly monitor the quality of education received by pupils attending minority education programmes in order to ensure that the changes introduced into the education system do not undermine the quality of education and disproportionately reduce the opportunity for pupils to have good command of their minority language. The education authorities should also provide schools implementing minority education programmes with the necessary teaching materials and the teachers of these schools with adequate opportunities to continue to improve their Latvian and minority language skills in order to ensure their ability to implement the study process in Latvian, minority language and bilingually.

121. The Venice Commission remains at the disposal of the Latvian authorities and the Parliamentary Assembly for further assistance in this matter.


Document data: 18.06.2020. CDL-AD(2020)012; Opinion No. 975/2020. Link: https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL-AD(2020)012-e Also available in French.

Opinion on minority education reforms (excerpts on background), 2020

II. Preliminary remarks

[..]

B. Background information

1. Linguistic situation in Latvia

10. According to the 2011 population census of Latvia, the ethnic Latvian population makes up 62.1% of the total population, which is approximately 2 million. The largest ethnic groups are Russians (26.9%), Belarusians (3.3%), Ukrainians (2.2%), Poles (2.2%) and Lithuanians (1.2%).1

1 “On key provisional results of Population and Housing Census 2011”. Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia. 18 January 2012.

11. According to data collected in 2017 by the Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia, 2 Latvian was the mother tongue of 60.8% of the inhabitants followed by Russian (36%) and other languages (3.2%) such as Belarusian, Ukrainian, Polish and Liv(onian). The same data reveals that the share of population mainly using Latvian at home accounts for 61.3%, while that of people using Russian constitutes 37.7%. Around 217,000 or 10.4% of Latvia’s population hold the status of the former citizens of the USSR. They are so-called “non-citizens” as they are not citizen of Latvia or any other state.3

2 “Indicators characterising languages used by the population of Latvia”, Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia. 2017

3 Upon ratifying the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (hereinafter: “the Framework Convention”) on 26 May 2005, Latvia stated, in a Declaration concerning the personal scope of application it intended to give the Convention, that “[p]ersons who are not citizens of Latvia or another State but who permanently and legally reside in the Republic of Latvia, who do not belong to a national minority within the meaning of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities as defined in this Declaration, but who identify themselves with a national minority that meets the definition contained in this Declaration, shall enjoy the rights prescribed in the Framework Convention, unless specific exceptions are prescribed by law.

2. Historical overview of the amendments in the field of the education in minority languages

12. Throughout history, Latvian – similarly as several other languages in Central and Eastern Europe – was actively suppressed and sometimes voluntarily abandoned in favour of languages considered more sophisticated or more international. This was the case of German in the 18-19th century and Russian in the 19-20th century. The situation of the Latvian language became critical after the occupation and unlawful annexation of Latvia by the Soviet Union in 1940, even more after the Soviet re-occupation of the country in 1944-1945 that led to large-scale migration from the other parts of the USSR into Latvia4 as well as mass deportations of the local population. The Soviet authorities relentlessly pursued semi-official policy of Russification. The Russian language was promoted as the means of inter-ethnic communication, other languages did not have an equal status, and this fully applied to occupied Latvia. 5

4 The number of Russians in Latvia grew from 8.8% of the total population in 1935 to 34% in 1989. It started to decrease again after Latvia regained independence in 1991 falling to 25.2% at the beginning of 2018. See Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Latvia, “Ethnic Composition and the Protection and Promotion of the Cultural Identity of National Minorities” (15 January 2015); and Central Statistical Bureau of Latvia, “In 2017, usually resident population of Latvia declined by 15.7 thousand” (28 May 2018).

5 The implementation of the policy of Russification during Soviet period and its consequences on the linguistic situation in Latvia are explained in details in the judgments of 23 April 2019 and 13 November 2019 of the Constitutional Court of Latvia

13. The restored Latvian state inherited from the Soviet system a segregated schooling system, in which Russians and other minorities attended schools with Russian as the language of instruction, while Latvians went to Latvian schools, but where Russian was a mandatory part of the curriculum. As a result, at the restoration of the independence of Latvia in 1991 the largest minority language – Russian – had in fact a more prominent place in schooling than the newly re-established state language Latvian. In 1991, most Latvians were bilingual, i.e. Latvian and Russian speakers, while Russians and other ethnic groups living in Latvia generally did not speak Latvian. On the other hand, other ethnic groups – Polish, Ukrainian, Belorussian and Jewish – did not have access to education in the language of their ethnicity, since they had been subject to the same policy of Russification as the titular ethnic group. Only since the restoration of Latvian independence were minority schools other than Russian schools re-established (they had existed in independent Latvia before World War II) – Polish, Jewish, Ukrainian and Estonian at first, to be joined by a Belarusian and a Lithuanian school some three to four years later.6

6 Analytical Report PHARE RAXEN_CC Minority Education, study compiled by RAXEN_CC National Focal Point of the European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia (EUMC), Vienna, 2004, p. 6

[..]

17. The 1998 Education Law provided that in 2004 upper secondary education (grades 10 to 12) would switch to the Latvian language only. However, after protests in 2003 and 2004, the Law was amended, imposing on state and local government schools9 an obligation to ensure education in Latvian for not less than three fifths of the total number of lessons in a school year, which means that up to 40% of the curriculum in grades 10 to12 could be taught in a minority language (Sub-paragraph 3 of paragraph 9 of the Transitional Provisions of the Education Law). By its judgment of 13 May 2005, the Constitutional Court declared the constitutionality of the provisions of the Education Law introducing this requirement.

9 In Latvia most of public schools are established by local authorities – municipalities. For the sake of clarity and simplicity, the present opinion uses the term “state schools” for all state and municipal institutions of education

[..]

3. Current situation of the education in minority languages

20. According to the information shared on the website of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Latvia11 as of June 2018, minority education programmes existed in seven languages: Russian, Polish, Hebrew, Ukrainian, Estonian, Lithuanian, and Belarusian. The state provided funding to 104 schools implementing minority education programmes (among them, 94 schools implement education programmes in Russian and bilingually, 4 – in Polish and bilingually, 1 – in Ukrainian and bilingually, 2 – in Hebrew and bilingually, 1 – in Latvian and Lithuanian, and 1 – in Latvian and Estonian) as well as 68 schools that offer both Latvian and minority education programmes (“dual stream schools”). For the 2017/2018 school year, a total of 49 380 students were registered in basic minority education programmes (grades 1 to 9) (out of 176 675 students at this education level in total) and 9 271 students were registered in upper secondary minority education programmes (grades 10 to 12) (out of 36 693 students at this education level in total).

11 https://www.mfa.gov.lv/en/policy/society-integration/minority-education-in-latvia/minority-education-statisticsand-trends

21. Education in other languages of instruction than Latvian may be acquired in private schools as well. However, the number of private basic and secondary schools using other languages is insignificant. According to data provided to the rapporteurs by the Ministry of Education, in 2018/2019 58 private basic and secondary schools operated in Latvia (grades 1 to 12): 6 were international schools, 11 schools were teaching in Russian, 8 in Latvian and Russian, 2 in English, 1 in German, 1 in Latvian and French, 1 in Hebrew and the rest only in Latvian. In the same school year, the total number of students enrolled in ethnic minorities education programmes (bilingual Russian-Latvian) of private schools was 1 484.

4. Statistical data regarding proficiency in Latvian

22. The gradual introduction of the state language in minority education programmes improved Latvian language proficiency substantially. While in 1989, in the last years of the Soviet Union, only 23% of the non-Latvians living in Latvia could communicate in Latvian, already in 2000 this indicator reached 53% and in 2009 over 90%. 12 Research carried out at the request of the Latvian Language Agency, through opinion polls and in-depth interviews with experts, and published in 2012, revealed that the proportion of non-Latvian inhabitants with command of Latvian (92%) was still lower than that of Latvian-speaking inhabitants with command of Russian (98%). It however indicated that proficiency in Russian was decreasing, especially in the youngest generation, whereas the popularity of Latvian was raising. Statistics indicated that among young people (aged 17-25) there were more speakers of Latvian than Russian.13

12 https://valoda.lv/wp-content/uploads/aktual/Val_sit_informat_lapa_3.pdf

13 Language situation in Latvia: 2004–2010, Latvian Language Agency, 2012, pp. 19-20

23. The follow-up research, published in 2017, confirmed these trends: “Among Latvia’s young people (aged 15-24) Latvian is more widespread than Russian and, according to their selfassessment, their level of Latvian language proficiency is considerably higher than that of their Russian language proficiency. 87.3 % of Latvia’s young people aged 15-24 say that they speak Latvian very well or well, but 58.5 % say the same about their Russian language proficiency.14 This shows that around 13% of Latvia’s young people asses their knowledge of Latvian as not good.

14 Language situation in Latvia: 2010–2015, Latvian Language Agency, 2017, pp. 53, 55, 88.

24. The same research indicates that the language used for communication in society still is more often Russian than Latvian (p. 54), but it also indicates a tendency among members of ethnic minority communities to send their children to schools with Latvian as the language of instruction, specifically in order to ensure that they learn Latvian at a good level. As a result, the proportion of all schoolchildren in Latvia studying in schools implementing minority education programmes slowly but continually decreases (it was 33% in 1999 and 27% in 2010) (p. 79). This tendency was confirmed as well by certain interlocutors met in Riga.

25. Notwithstanding the abovementioned developments, the Latvian educational system still does not guarantee a sufficient proficiency in Latvian of all students. As for the students attending minority education programmes, the 2017 research indicates that “ethnic minority students who received their secondary education in a school with Latvian as the medium of instruction have Latvian language proficiency that is somewhat higher than those who continued to attend schools implementing the ethnic minority educational program.”(p. 82) The Ministry of Education provided the rapporteurs with the results of the grade 9 Latvian language exam of the students of the schools implementing minority education programmes for the period from 2016 to 2019. The results indicate that most of the students of those schools have B1 or B2 level of proficiency and only around 10% of them attained C1 level and almost 0% C2 level. The Ministry also provided comparative data regarding the results of the grade 12 Latvian language exam for years 2012 to 2019. They indicate that the results of the students of the schools with Latvian language are approximately 15% higher than the results of the students of the schools implementing minority education programmes. The results have remained almost the same for both two categories of students from 2012 to 2019.

26. These data demonstrate that in Latvia there is an issue of lack of proficiency in the state language amongst students enrolled in schools implementing minority education programmes.


Document data: 18.06.2020. CDL-AD(2020)012; Opinion No. 975/2020. Link: https://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/?pdf=CDL-AD(2020)012-e Also available in French.

Publisher’s notes: much of the interpretations given in the document is based on inaccurate data or definitions. The most striking ones, from the excerpts quoted here, are:

the description of the choice of language of instruction as “segregation”. This is contrary both to the Council of Europe’s own definition of segregation, provided by ECRI in the explanatory memorandum to its General Policy Recommendation No. 7, and to the clarifications of explicitly permitted linguistic diversity in Article 2 of the anti-segregatory UNESCO Convention against Discrimination in Education. The Venice Commission itself refers to the latter in para. 35;

the claim that Russian “had in fact a more prominent place in schooling than the newly re-established state language Latvian” in 1991. Please see the 1992 data from Latvia’s own education ministry to refute this claim;

the claim of Soviet Latvia subjecting non-Russian minorities to “the same policy of Russification as the titular ethnic group”, which creates an impression as if: a) there were no schools and universities with instruction in Latvian in the Soviet Latvia, b) there were no Latvianization along with the Russification. In fact, the smaller minorities could and did send children to schools with instruction in Latvian as well;

the description of “a tendency among members of ethnic minority communities to send their children to schools with Latvian as the language of instruction” without pointing to Russian-language schools having been mostly closed during the renewed independence.

Fundamental Rights Report 2020 (excerpts), 2020

2. EQUALITY AND NON-DISCRIMINATION

[..]

2.2. EFFECTIVENESS AND INDEPENDENCE OF EQUALITY BODIES STILL UNDER SCRUTINY

[..]

Against this background, country reports and conclusions on the implementation of previous recommendations released in 2019 by the Council of Europe’s Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) show that lack of independence and insufficient human and financial resources continue to affect a significant number of equality bodies across the EU. [..]

The lack of a mandate to provide independent assistance to victims of discrimination came out in the report on Latvia. 33 [..]

33 Council of Europe, ECRI (2019), ECRI report on Latvia (fifth monitoring cycle), Strasbourg, Council of Europe, 5 March 2019.

[..]

3. RACISM, XENOPHOBIA AND RELATED INTOLERANCE

[..]

3.1. RACISM REMAINS A PERSISTENT PROBLEM

Racism and prejudice continued to pose serious challenges across the EU. Several people were murdered in hate crimes in 2019, as in previous years. Troublingly, diverse polls – exploring both general attitudes and individual experiences − suggest that tolerance of racism and right-wing extremism is growing.

Around one in three of 1,005 Latvian residents do not want to work alongside Roma (33 %), Afghan (30 %), Pakistani (29 %), Syrian (26 %) or African (25 %) persons, a poll revealed.1

1 Latvia, Research centre SKDS (2019), Opinion of Latvian residents about ethnic relations in Latvia (Latvijas iedzīvotāju viedoklis par etniskajām attiecībām Latvijā).

[..]

3.2. LEGAL AND POLICY INITIATIVES TO CURB HATE CRIME AND HATE SPEECH FALL SHORT

The Framework Decision on Racism and Xenophobia (2008/913/JHA) defines a common criminal law approach to racist and xenophobic hate speech and hate crimes and establishes objectives the Member States have to fulfil to ensure that certain serious manifestations of racism and xenophobia are punishable throughout the EU. [..]

In 2019, ECRI identified gaps in several Member States’ legislation against the public expression of and incitement to hatred, which is also subject to EU legislation. Its reports on Ireland,23 Latvia,24 Slovenia25 and Romania26 raised concerns that no legislative provisions penalise the public expression of insults, or defamation on grounds of race, colour, language, religion, nationality or national or ethnic origin.

24 Council of Europe, ECRI (2019), ECRI report on Latvia (fifth monitoring cycle), Strasbourg, Council of Europe, 5 March 2019

[..]

3.2.3. Encouraging hate crime reporting

[..]

To increase trust in the police and to address hate crime under-reporting, ECRI recommended that Latvia establish a state police unit to reach out to vulnerable groups.78 [..]

78 Council of Europe, European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI) (2019), ECRI report on Latvia (fifth monitoring cycle), Strasbourg, Council of Europe, 5 March 2019.

[..]

Providing tools for policymakers to address hate crime

In 2019, several EU projects funded by the Rights, Equality and Citizenship Programme 2014-2020 developed multilingual tools and guidance for policymakers at national, regional and local level to address hate crime. These include:

— Proximity policing against racism, xenophobia, and other forms of intolerance (Proximity) – Spanish Observatory for Racism and Xenophobia (Oberaxe), Ministry of Employment and Social Security, with partners in Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, Italy, Latvia, Portugal, Spain and the United Kingdom:

[..]

3.3. More efforts needed to implement Racial Equality Directive correctly

[..]

ECRI and CERD expressed concern about gaps in legislation against ethnic discrimination in a number of Member States. For example, in its report on Latvia, ECRI stressed that there is currently no comprehensive legislation dedicated to prohibiting racial discrimination.83

83 Council of Europe, ECRI (2019), ECRI report on Latvia (fifth monitoring cycle), Strasbourg, Council of Europe, 5 March 2019.

[..]


Document data: 11.06.2020. ISBN 978-92-9474-895-9 Link: https://fra.europa.eu/sites/default/files/fra_uploads/fra-2020-fundamental-rights-report-2020_en.pdf