<div dir="ltr"><h3 class="">
Going (beyond) Dutch </h3>
Apr 18th 2013, 17:51<span class=""> by S.A.P. | LOS ANGELES</span>
<div class="">
<p dir="ltr"><span>FOR small European states, language policy calls
for a delicate balancing act. Luxembourg has three official languages,
Switzerland four, and Belgium three. In Luxembourg, the distinction is
mostly functional: different languages for different social spheres. In
Switzerland and Belgium, languages are instead spread geographically.
This geographic spread seems to simplify matters on paper, creating
clear lines between language communities. Belgium’s constitution, for
example, divides the country into four linguistic regions: the
Dutch-speaking north (Flanders, or the Flemish Region), the
French-speaking south (Wallonia), the small German-speaking regions in
the east, and the bilingual (Dutch-French) capital, Brussels. But with
the country divided roughly in half between Flanders and Wallonia, laws
and policies become proxies for deeper cultural tensions. The standoff
between the Dutch- and French-speaking communities was partcularly tense
after the 2010 elections, when it took over 500 days to form a
government.</span></p><p dir="ltr"><span>In part because of this
longstanding division, some Flemish and Wallonian laws are fiercely
protective of Dutch and French. But the European Court of Justice (ECJ)
thinks at least one of those laws has unacceptable consequences. Flemish
law had previously considered only Dutch-language contracts authentic.
Contracts in other languages would be nullified. Anton Las, from the
Netherlands, had been contracted to be chief financial officer of PSA
Antwerp, a Belgian subsidiary of a Singaporean port operator. His
contract was in English. Unfortunately for Mr Las, his contract was
nullified under the Dutch-only law, and he was booted from the company.
Denied a job, he sued. A Belgian court, unsure of how to answer, asked
the ECJ to make a preliminary ruling on that section of Flemish law. On
Tuesday, the ECJ decided that the policy violated EU law.</span></p><p dir="ltr"><span>The ECJ </span><a href="http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=136301&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1027954"><span>agreed</span></a><span>
that preserving and promoting a country’s language is important. But
the laws must be proportionate to the need. Because EU law protects
workers' freedom of movement, restrictions on that freedom must be
carefully crafted. The court worried that a Dutch-only law would
dissuade people from moving to Flanders and taking up work.</span></p><blockquote><p dir="ltr"><span>[T]he
objective of promoting and encouraging the use of Dutch, which is one
of the official languages of the Kingdom of Belgium, constitutes a
legitimate interest which, in principle, justifies a restriction on the
obligations imposed by Article 45 TFEU [the EU law covering freedom of
movement for workers].</span></p><p dir="ltr"><span>... [But] in order
to satisfy the requirements laid down by European Union law, legislation
... must be proportionate to those objectives.</span></p></blockquote><p dir="ltr"><span>The court recommended allowing foreign transactors to use a mutually intelligible language:</span></p><blockquote><p dir="ltr"><span>[P]arties
to a cross-border employment contract do not necessarily have knowledge
of [Dutch]. In such a situation, the establishment of free and informed
consent between the parties requires those parties to be able to draft
their contract in a language other than [Dutch].</span></p></blockquote><p dir="ltr"><span>The
ECJ’s preliminary rulings are binding, so the Flemish government will
have to rejigger its policies. The law in question here was written with
no flexibility at all, suggesting that it served linguistic nationalism
more than genuine need.</span> Belgium has outsized language worries
for its size, so it will be curious to see how Flemish businesses react
to new rules. I suspect that more flexibility will revitalise, not doom,
business there.</p><p dir="ltr"><a href="http://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2013/04/language-policy">http://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2013/04/language-policy</a><br></p><p dir="ltr"><br></p></div><br clear="all">
<br>-- <br>**************************************<br>N.b.: Listing on the lgpolicy-list is merely intended as a service to its members<br>and implies neither approval, confirmation nor agreement by the owner or sponsor of the list as to the veracity of a message's contents. Members who disagree with a message are encouraged to post a rebuttal, and to write directly to the original sender of any offensive message. A copy of this may be forwarded to this list as well. (H. Schiffman, Moderator)<br>
<br>For more information about the lgpolicy-list, go to <a href="https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/">https://groups.sas.upenn.edu/mailman/</a><br>listinfo/lgpolicy-list<br>*******************************************
</div>