Enforcing language rights of minorities in practice: how can citizens challenge violations?

Across Europe, minority language speakers enjoy certain minimum standards of protection (based on the European Charter of Regional and Minority Languages, the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities, and general human rights provisions). Yet, national legal systems differ significantly in the material scope of linguistic rights they protect. But regardless of material differences, how are these rights enforced in practice? What procedural avenues do citizens actually have on the domestic level to make their voices heard when language rights are ignored? In fact, this is a key issue to consider, to make sure that minority language laws do not remain dead letters.

Sure, neither EU nor international law specifically requires states to foresee national complaint procedures for language issues. Nevertheless, various states have put in place more or less formalised “language rights bodies” in charge of handling citizens’ grievances. What happens, for example, if your doctor refuses to explain your diagnosis in your (legally protected) minority language and you struggle to understand? Or if you, as a regional language speaker, get an important letter from the tax authority written only in the state language and you are not sure about its meaning? Some states and regions make it easier for individuals to file complaints than others. It also matters whether complaint bodies can initiate investigations and punish the responsible entity. Let’s have a closer look at some of these bodies, their legal foundation, independence, powers, and impact.

Internationally, the pioneer in the field, clearly, was the Official Languages Commissioner of Canada, established in 1970, at a time when relations between the Francophone and Anglophone communities were tense. The commissioner is mandated to ensure compliance with the Official Languages Act by safeguarding the equal status of English and French within the Canadian Parliament, in federal institutions and all entities providing services on behalf of federal institutions, as well as certain privatised companies, which retained their language obligations. What makes Canada’s Languages Commissioner particularly powerful is that they are vested with prerogatives akin to those of a prosecutor, including the summoning of witnesses and the assessment of evidence. The Commissioner can issue opinions, report findings, refer the case to a federal institution and recommend necessary actions, such as the discontinuation of any act, policy or practice. The Commissioner is intended to operate independently. Although appointed by the Governor in Council, the process involves bicameral parliamentary approval, which is also required for his removal. While previous years were marked by 1,000 to 2,000 complaints per year, in 2024, the Commissioner received 847 complaints – most regarding Air Canada. When it comes to the subnational level instead, the Office québécois de la langue française stands out: its mission is to ensure the respect of language rights as defined in the Charte de la langue française in Québec, monitoring essentially private companies and administrative bodies. In 2023-2024, 9,125 complaints were received, in an upward trend of almost 150% in five years.

In Wales (United Kingdom), the Welsh Language Commissioner (Comisiynydd y Gymraeg), can also activate a quite rigorous enforcement policy. If the Commissioner concludes that standards were breached, they may require the organisation to take concrete steps to prevent further non-compliance. On top of offering guidance and issuing recommendations, the Commissioner can impose civil penalties of up to £5,000. Subsequently, unsatisfied citizens can still appeal to the Welsh Language Tribunal. The Commissioner’s office was established by the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011, to ensure that public services are available in Welsh and safeguard individuals’ freedom to use the language. During 2023-2024, a total of 127 language complaints and 122 enquiries were received. A persistent point of concern is the health sector, where the Commissioner has called for a robust approach to alleviate the existing uncertainty for Welsh language users.

Similarly, in South Tyrol (Italy), an important share of language complaints consists of those filed against the province’s public health agency, which is facing a dire lack of bilingual medical personnel. Other complaints concern transport, postal services and the tax authority. Here, the oversight of the equal use of the co-official languages German and Italian (and Ladin in the Ladin valleys) is shared between the central state and the Province. On the one hand, the task lies with the Commissario del Governo/Regierungskommissär, the central government’s representative to the Province. Admittedly, this may seem counterintuitive: Upholding the equal use of languages – in particular, the use of German and Ladin as regionally protected minority languages – is, above all, a genuinely regional interest. So, one might ask: Is a central government body really best placed to act as gatekeeper on the matter? On the other hand, since 2020, individuals can also reach out to the newly created Office for Official Languages and Civic Rights. This department of the provincial administration receives complaints by citizens who encounter difficulties with using their native or chosen language (German, Italian and partly Ladin) in relations with public institutions in the region, including state entities with regional competence or with private entities delivering public services. If a request is well-founded, the office enquires confidentially with the relevant body, reminding it of the applicable language requirements, in particular the law governing language use vis-à-vis public institutions, namely D.P.R. n° 574 of 15 July 1988. The outcome is then reported back to the citizen. The Office may also refer cases to the Commissario del Governo, who holds the power to issue penalties for the disrespect of linguistic equality and bilingualism provisions. In practice, though, emphasis is put on settling disputes by mediating between citizens and public entities. Numbers are rising: In 2024, in total, 76 cases were reported, while in the ongoing year (2025), they already exceed 90. Complaints mainly concern the lack of or incomplete use of German. With regard to administrative acts issued in violation of language provisions, citizens can lodge an annulment request directly with the issuing authority, which temporarily suspends the effects of the act. If the request is rejected, citizens can appeal to the administrative tribunal, which judicially ascertains the validity of the act. Finally, in addition to both the Office and the Commissario, individuals may approach the office of the South Tyrolean Ombudsman, who independently investigates and defends citizens’ interests in the face of the public administration and regularly receives also language-related complaints.

Along similar lines, in Spain, language complaints are generally subsumed under the competence of regional ombudsmen, such as the Síndic de Greuges (Catalonia), the Ararteko (Basque Country) or the Valedor do Pobo (Galicia). In Catalonia, citizens can also file a complaint with the Ministry of Language Policy. In 2022, 8,857 inquiries and complaints were handled by the competent Office of Language Guarantees, of which 332 involved language rights breaches. In the city of Barcelona, in 2024, a total of 192 incidents of linguistic discrimination were recorded, almost exclusively relating to the use of Catalan. Many cases involved private companies, but also healthcare providers, police stations and courier services. Recently, in reaction to a reportedly Catalanophobic theatre performance, Barcelona’s mayor nominated the city’s first Catalan language commissioner, the Comissionada d’Ús Social del Català. Its focus will be on promoting the use of Catalan online, on social media and among young people. Only time will tell if and how the commissioner lives up to their tasks.

Finally, Belgium’s statewide Commission Permanente de Contrôle Linguistique/Permanente Commissie voor Taaltoezicht/Ständige Kommission für Sprachenkontrolle is worth mentioning. Its duty is to supervise the respect of the law on language use across the administration and public services in all linguistic areas of the country, as well as to ensure fairness in language exams and appointments. Tasked to investigate complaints or self-initiate enquiries, the Commission provides non-binding but influential opinions. While it does not have judicial authority, the Commission can open annulment proceedings before the Council of State. Five members are nominated by the Flemish Parliament, five by the Parliament of the French Community and one by the Parliament of the German-speaking Community. Although the commission is supported by state officials appointed by the government, it operates independently from the Minister of the Interior. Lately, the Commission has attracted media attention because of its controversial finding that a complaint about a train inspector who greeted passengers in both Flemish and French – while the train crossed the monolingual Flemish-speaking territory – was well-founded.

Obviously, language use in minority regions can be a sensitive matter. Reported breaches should be treated carefully and with due confidentiality. It is regrettable that some states – for example Austria or France – do not offer any comparable complaint procedure for linguistic minority concerns. Seen from a macro perspective, the creation of a language commissioner, ombudsman or office is never a politically neutral move. Instead, it affirms the importance of minority languages and the communities that speak them. By adopting these kinds of mechanisms, governments seek not only to uphold linguistic rights in practice, but to foster social equality, societal cohesion and dialogue.

While some complaint bodies function more like ombudsmen, others take up the role of proper watchdogs on language use, with far-reaching powers on the national or subnational level. Which model works best to enforce the rights of linguistic communities? Entities with a strong legal foundation, an independent set-up and investigation duties can have a meaningful impact on citizens’ freedom to use minority languages in their daily lives. Nevertheless, dialogue-based procedures can sometimes be more appropriate to achieve results. For decision-makers, cross-regional knowledge-sharing could bring valuable expertise, for example in challenging areas such as the health sector, as long as situation-specific differences are kept in mind. Generally, what counts is for the body to build up public trust and societal standing over time and gain greater leverage against those who disregard language provisions. Ultimately, the mission should not be to exacerbate divisions along linguistic lines, but instead to contribute to a more equal and just living together in a plurilingual society.