TC declares unconstitutional part of a Basque rule that gives priority to Basque over Spanish in town halls

The law indicated that in the consistories you can only write in Spanish if you do not know Basque

MADRID, 6 Jul. (EUROPA PRESS) -

The Constitutional Court (TC) has ruled that it is unconstitutional that local institutions in the Basque Country can only write official documents in Spanish if Basque is not known.

The sentence, presented by Judge César Tolosa, thus considers the question of unconstitutionality promoted by the Third Section of the Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of the Basque Country, in relation to the second section of article 6 of Law 2 /2016, of April 7, of local institutions in the Basque Country.

It considers that the requirement of ignorance of the Basque language so that the calls, agendas, motions, individual votes, resolution proposals, opinions of the information commissions, agreements and minutes of the bodies of local entities are drawn up in Spanish, implies a treatment preferential use of Basque, which undermines the linguistic rights of the members of local entities.

Thus, it explains that article 6.2 of the law on local institutions of the Basque Country is contrary to article 3.1 of the Constitution because it prescribes a priority use of Basque, and causes an unjustified and disproportionate imbalance in the use of Spanish, by establishing formalities or conditions for the representatives of local entities can exercise their right to free choice, according to the note issued by the guarantee court, collected by Europa Press.

For this reason, the sentence declares the unconstitutionality and nullity of the requirement to validly allege ignorance of the Basque language so that the linguistic option can be exercised. And it insists that with this requirement the linguistic balance between the two co-official languages ​​is broken by conditioning the use of Spanish to the lack of knowledge of Basque, so that the rights of free choice in linguistic matters of those who represent citizens in local entities are unreasonably restricted.

On the other hand, the judgment of the TC recalls that the Magna Carta "does not oppose the adoption of a policy focused on the defense and promotion of the co-official language" and that "quite the contrary, the Constitution refers to the need to protect and respect the different linguistic modalities of Spain as part of our cultural heritage".

But he qualifies that it is not in accordance with the Constitution to legally grant preference in the use by public authorities to an official language in relation to others that are also official, that is, to establish priority treatment in favor of one of the co-official languages.

In line, the sentence explains that "the local entities of the Basque Country, as a public power, cannot have preference for either of the two official languages, whether that linguistic primacy expressly recognized in the norm results to the detriment of the other co-official language or due to the imposition of conditions that imply a priority treatment or use of one of the languages ​​over the other Spanish language".

It also explains that the Constitutional Court has repeatedly held that "citizens have the right to use Spanish or the official language of the autonomous community without distinction in their relations with all the public institutions that are located in the territory of that community."

This sentence has had the particular vote of Judge Laura Díez, to which Judge Ramón Sáez has joined, because they consider that the question of unconstitutionality should have been dismissed on the understanding that the questioned rule respects Article 3 of the Constitution and constitutional jurisprudence who has interpreted it.

They point out that this jurisprudence maintains that the legislator can adopt linguistic policy measures aimed at correcting eventual situations of imbalance and that public authorities must address citizens and members of local authorities in the language chosen by them. For this reason, they consider that both conditions are scrupulously met in the contested rule.

In this sense, they point out that applying the new doctrine of the Constitutional Court, from which the individual vote disagrees, the ruling of the judgment considers that the subparagraph "as long as the rights of any member of the local entity are not infringed" should be interpreted in such a way that No "formalism or condition" can be required of them in order to receive communications in Spanish, not even the mere communication of ignorance of the co-official language.

In his opinion, this necessarily leads to the regime of bilingualism ("linguistic balance") or to the exclusive use of Spanish, the only language that all Spaniards must know. Judges Díez and Sáez are not only against this interpretation, but they are also against the declaration of unconstitutionality of the subparagraph "that can validly allege ignorance of the Basque language".