Language policy in Luxembourg: an uneasy compromise between cohesion and identity

18







Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), mail : [email protected]
My research showed other examples in the year 1802.
Art. 30 became art. 29 (unchanged) in the Constitution of 27 November 1857.
Verordnung betreffend die Änderung von Vor-und Familiennamen [Regulation on the changing of given and surnames], 31.3.1941, exhibit available at the Musée national de la résistance, Esch-sur-Alzette, showing an administrative decision to change a name from Camille into Kamill.
The original version reads as follows : "(…) sans préjudice des dispositions spéciales concernant certaines matières."
The original version reads as follows : "dans la mesure du possible".
Règlement grand-ducal concernant l'étiquetage et la presentation des denrées alimentaires ainsi que la publicité faite à leur égard, 14 December 2000, art. 14.
The Commission also brought an infringement procedure. The judgment was delivered on the same day, confirming incompatibility of the prior language test with Directive 98/5/EC.
The origin can be traced back to De Feierwon, a patriotic song written in 1859.
Language policy in Luxembourg: an uneasy compromise between cohesion and identity

Stefaan van der Jeught

Abstract This article examines the language law and policy in the only EU Member State which has a trilingual official language policy on its entire territory. Under Luxembourgish law, the Luxembourgish language has acquired the status of "national language". French is the legislative language. In addition, Luxembourgish, French and German are all three administrative and court languages. A "law in context" approach is followed: the legal analysis of this unique language policy is supplemented with an overview of the historical background as well as data on actual language use and practices. The main challenge of Luxembourg's language policy is highlighted, namely finding equilibrium between national identity and social cohesion. I argue that the apparent antagonism between Luxembourgish as the language of identity and integration, on the one hand, and French as the legal language and the real common language, on the other, leads in actual fact to a certain degree of linguistic segregation among residents. Research for this article was carried out as part of my PhD thesis on "Conflicting Language Policies in the EU and its Member States", which I defended in September 2015 at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel. The larger part of the thesis (without the chapter on Luxembourg) was published in 2015 (Van der Jeught, EU Language Law).
Keywords Language policy – Language law – Official multilingualism – Identity – Social cohesion – Luxembourg

Luxembourg, a unique trilingualism

On more than one count, the language policy of Luxembourg is particularly interesting. Firstly, it is the only EU Member State applying a multilingual policy, based on personal rather than territorial criteria (Magère, Esmein and Poty 1998: 35). This entails that three languages, namely French, German and Luxembourgish (Lëtzebuergesch), may be used in dealings with the authorities throughout the territory. It will, however, be shown that only French fulfils all linguistic functions and that the scope of the other languages is more limited.
Secondly, the case of Luxembourg highlights to what extent language can be instrumental in enhancing national identity. Linguistically speaking, Luxembourgish is a Moselle Franconian language variety, bearing great similarities to other Germanic varieties in the region (Trausch 1998: 20). In 1984, Luxembourgish was proclaimed the national language. Quite a remarkable upgrade for a language which was until 1900 referred to as lëtzebuerger Däitsch [Lëtzebuergesch German] or even slecht Daïtsch [bad German] (Müller 2007: 1). Significantly in this context, a proposal in 1896 by the socialist Member of Parliament, Caspar Spoo, to use Luxembourgish in Parliament was rejected because it was not a language: "l'on ne saurait se servir de l'idiome du pays dans les débats à la Chambre, celui-ci ne constituant pas une langue" [one cannot use the vernacular of the country in the debates at the House, as it is not a language]. By contrast, the first authors writing in Luxembourgish, such as Dicks (Edmond de la Fontaine), Michel Lentz or Antoine Meyer, used to call the language more endearingly onst Däitsch [our German] (Müller 2007: 1).

A national history on the Germanic-Romance language border

Luxembourg's current linguistic situation is clearly rooted in its geographical position, as the territory has always been located on the border between the Germanic and Romance linguistic areas of Europe (Peersman, Rutten and Vosters 2015: 1). Luxembourg was located in the area of the old Carolingian empire which was divided by a language border into two separate parts: "Germania" and "Romania". German and French have jealously competed for centuries to become the language of the administration (Redinger 2010: 90).
From the 13th century onwards, French took the place of Latin as the language of the nobility. Even the emerging middle classes of merchants used it alongside German, due to the prestige French enjoyed. The vast majority of the population, – serfs and peasants – spoke, however, exclusively the local Germanic dialect (Redinger 2010: 92).
Over the years, the Luxembourg territory has changed hands several times. Comprising roughly the current Grand Duchy of Luxembourg and the Belgian province of Luxembourg, it was ruled by the Burgundians (1443-1506), the Spanish (1506-1684), the French (1684-1698), again the Spanish (1698-1714), the Austrians (1714-1795) and, again, the French (1795-1815). In 1815, Luxembourg formed a Union with the Netherlands (1815-1830). During the Belgian Revolution, Luxembourg was de facto part of Belgium, with the exception of the town of Luxembourg (1830-1839). On 19 April 1839, the Treaty of London attributed half of the territory of the Grand Duchy to Belgium. On 11 May 1867, Luxembourg gained full sovereignty by the (second) Treaty of London (Schmitt 2009: 54; Eyschen 1910: 1).

Burgundians (1443-1506) and Spanish (1506-1684)
Under Burgundian rule, as long as the central government was situated in Brussels, the higher administrative authorities used French (Eyschen 1910: 37). Whilst in the 15th and 16th centuries German was still used (Frisch 1998: 108), in the 17th century French became the sole administrative language, with the exception of the lower courts which continued to handle cases in German (Eyschen 1910: 37). For instance, a legislative text of the Archdukes Albert and Isabelle on forestry was, in that period, published in French only (Edit, Ordonnance et Règlement des Archiducs nos Princes Souverains, sur le fait des bois of 14 September 1617).
French (1684-1698), Spanish (1698-1714), Austrian (1714-1795) and French again (1795-1815)
During the short first French reign, German was completely banned, also from the lower courts (Frisch 1998: 108). French continued to be used in the administration under the subsequent Spanish and Austrian rule. An example thereof is the Ordonnance et règlement de sa majesté impériale et catholique sur le fait de la Chasse & de la Pêche of 10 June 1732 (during the Austrian reign). In the second French period, French was formally introduced as the exclusive language of the administration and all the courts (Decree of 9 vendémiaire in the year IV (1796); Eyschen 1910: 37).
From the Mémorial (the Official Journal of Luxembourg, which was called Offizielles Journal – Journal Officiel in 1815 and Verwaltungsmemorial - Mémorial administratif from 1817) it appears that from 1775 to 1798, all legal texts are in French only. Nevertheless, towards the end of this period, examples of the use of German in legal acts can still be found. There is, inter alia, a Regulation of 4 August 1800 on tax law (recouvrement), which is also published in German (Verordnung über die Erhebung der directen Abgaben), probably because the authorities wanted to make absolutely sure the fiscal obligation was understood by all citizens. It should indeed be borne in mind that throughout all these political changes, the local Germanic dialect, the forerunner of Luxembourgish, remained the everyday language spoken by the vast majority of residents (Redinger 2008: 108).
The Union with the Netherlands (1815-1830)
On 9 June 1815, the Final Act of the Vienna Congress assigned Luxembourg, as a Grand Duchy, to the German Bund, under the personal sovereignty of William I, King of the Netherlands (Schmitt 2009: 54). In practice, the Grand Duchy was thus united with the Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Dutch Constitution applied. The civil and penal laws of the French era remained in force though (Bonn 1966: 11).
As to the linguistic policy, scholarship often holds that the Dutch sovereign strove to replace French with German and even Dutch as administrative languages (Frisch 1998: 108). The few examples of legislative acts that can be found in the Mémorial are, however, consistently published in both German and French. Legislative acts seem to be in both languages from 1814 to 1823. While there are examples of acts in French only, none are in German only.
Confused times in the aftermath of the Belgian revolution (1830-1839)
By Royal Decree of 4 June 1830 concerning the linguistic policy in the whole Kingdom, the king confirmed the use of both French and German in the Grand Duchy (Arrêté royal grand-ducal contenant des modifications aux dispositions existantes au sujet des diverses langues en usage dans le royaume). One year later, by Royal Decree of 31 December 1831, the king granted Luxembourg more autonomy and delegated the exercise of his powers to a governor, together with a government committee (Schmitt 2009: 56).
At the proclamation of the Belgian Constitution of 7 February 1831, Luxembourg became de facto part of Belgium, with the exception of the strategically important town of Luxembourg, where a Prussian garrison, allies of King William, safeguarded Dutch jurisdiction (Schmitt 2009: 55).
As to the language situation in that confused era, it is interesting to note that, on 14 June 1833, the president of the government committee in Luxembourg proclaimed linguistic freedom, declaring that both German and French would be official languages and that citizens had the right to use either of these languages in their dealings with the authorities. The Prussian military commanders of the garrison in the town of Luxembourg were nevertheless ordered by the president of the German Bund to accept only communications in German (Eyschen 1910: 37). In 1834, King William officially decreed language freedom for German and French (Arrêté royal grand-ducal du 22 février 1834 concernant l'usage des langues allemande et française dans les actes publics), the scope of this Decree being, however, in practice limited to the town of Luxembourg. All citizens were granted legally enforceable rights to use either language in their oral or written dealings with public authorities.
Consistent with this language policy, a Regulation on the right to gather wood from common land by the Belgian King Leopold I, concerning in practice only the areas outside the town of Luxembourg, was published in French and German (Règlement de la députation permanente du 13 juillet 1837 sur l'exercice du droit d'affouage et autres émoluments communaux).

The Treaty of London (18 April 1839) and the German Bund (1839-1867)
This Treaty put an end to the confused situation and split up the country: a substantial part of the territory was handed over to Belgium and the remainder gained independence. At that moment almost no citizen of Luxembourg had French as a mother tongue. Despite that, the influential Luxembourg upper classes who frequently used French, managed to enforce French as the administrative, legislative and political language of the new State. Interestingly, the clergy commonly used German (Trausch 1998: 24; Redinger 2008: 108). At the same time, political independence also reinforced the position of Luxembourgish. The local vernacular was associated with a Luxembourg identity, as it formed a differentiating characteristic from neighbouring countries (Redinger 2010: 92).
The Luxembourg Constitution of 12 October 1841 contained no language arrangements. The Decree of King William of 1834 laying down freedom of language was, however, published again in that year (arrêté no 8 relatif à la réimpression de l'arrêté de sa Majesté du 22 février 1834). The subsequent Constitution of 9 July 1848 made explicit provision for freedom of language, with regard to French and German. Article 30 of that Constitution stipulated that:
"L'emploi des langues allemande et française est facultatif. L'usage n'en peut être limité" [The use of the German and French language is free. The use thereof may not be limited].
A complete constitutional language freedom for French and German was thus established. The use of French on an equal footing with German served also a political purpose, namely to ensure Luxembourg's independence from Germany, in particular since the Grand Duchy was still part of the German Bund (Schmitt 2009: 54). In 1843, a law was passed which made French a compulsory school subject, on an equal footing with German (Loi sur l'instruction primaire, 26 July 1843). French lessons were introduced from primary school onwards. At the request of local municipalities and on serious grounds, the government could nevertheless waive the teaching of French. This opting-out possibility was inevitable due to the lack of qualified bilingual teachers. In practice therefore, German was dominant in the schooling system (Horner and Weber 2015: 238).
The independent Grand-Duchy (1867)
The end of the German Bund in 1866 led to full sovereignty for the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, which was recognised by the Treaty of London on 11 May 1867. Article 29 of the Constitution of 17 October 1868 reiterated in exactly the same terms the freedom of language laid down in the Constitution of 1848. The use of German and French was free and could not be limited. The Constitutional committee further explicitly declared that the latter provision was based on the declaration of 1833 regarding the right to use freely either language. It should be noted though that the French language version of the Constitution was the original one and the German language version only an official translation (Eyschen 1910: 219).
World War I and II
From research in the Mémorial, it appears that even under German occupation in the First World War, French continued to be used. The situation was different during the Second World War when, under Nazi rule, only the use of German was allowed (see, for instance, the Verordnung über die Erhebung der Gewerbesteuer [Regulation on Industry Tax] of 16 November 1943). The Nazis even went so far as to forbid not only the use of French, but also certain expressions, commonly used in Luxembourg, such as merci, pardon, or madame (Verordnung über das Verbot des Gebrauchs der Französischen Sprache in der Öffentlichkeit of 1 June 1941 [Regulation on the prohibition to use French in public]). Shopkeepers allowing the use of French were punishable with closure of their shops. Another Regulation obliged Luxembourgers bearing a French first name to change it to a German one.
During the war, rather than French, it was the Luxembourgish language that gained strength as a symbol of national identity (Redinger 2010: 93). In that regard the events in 1941 surrounding a census called by the German occupier on nationality and language seem to have been pivotal. Some assert the referendum actually took place and as many as 96% of Luxembourgers replied that "Luxembourgish" was their language, as opposed to the politically correct answer, namely German (Schmitt, 2009: 49; Trausch, 1998: 20; Magère, Esmein and Poty 1998: 37). Others maintain the Gauleiter cancelled the referendum beforehand because he was warned about the outcome (Frisch 1998: 107; Müller 2007: 2). The topic falls in any case outside the scope of my research.
The aftermath of World War II
Immediately after the liberation, some acts were still translated into German, but from 1945 onwards, statutes were published in French only (a last example of the use of German along French is the Regulation of 26 July 1944 on the state of siege). From 1945, only the name of the official journal remains bilingual, but acts are no longer available in German. In the aftermath of the War, the Constitutional revision of 6 May 1948 abolished the freedom of language. Instead, it was left to the law to regulate the use of languages in administrative and legal matters, to which end the new article 29 stipulated that:
"La Loi règlera l'emploi des langues en matière administrative et judiciaire." [The rules on the use of languages in administrative matters and court proceedings shall be established by Statute]. By the way, it is remarkable that the Constitution does not even mention which languages are concerned (Magère, Esmein and Poty 1998: 36).
This provision has remained unchanged and is currently still in force. Thus, it was German that lost its pre-war equal footing with French (Trausch 1998: 21). The discredited German language was replaced with French as much as possible in public life, on street signs, as the language of legislation, and also in Parliament (Redinger 2010: 94; Magère, Esmein and Poty 1998: 66). In actual fact, in the beginning of the 20th century, the democratisation had resulted in German being spoken more often in Parliament, yet, after 1945, German was banned from the Chamber (Magère, Esmein and Poty 1998: 65).
The linguistic situation remained unclear for many years, since no Statute on the use of languages was passed. At that time, the Decrees on language freedom for German and French of 1834 were still in force as they were not formally repealed until 1984.
Societal changes as of the 1960s
Important demographic changes took place in the Luxembourgish society as a result of immigration, mainly from Romance language speaking countries, such as Portugal and Italy. In 1981, foreigners made up 26% of all residents, a number that has continued to rise to currently 44,5% (Council of Europe 2006). Portuguese form the biggest community, followed by French, Italians, Belgians and Germans. Furthermore, of the many cross-border workers which have found employment in Luxembourg, about 80% come from France and Belgium (Horner and Weber 2015: 233; Pigeron-Piroth and Fehlen 2005: 4).
These newcomers have shifted the linguistic balance in Luxembourg and have reinforced the position of French, as this was – and still is – the primary language of communication between newcomers and indigenous people. Allegedly, French is used in 79 % of all contacts between non-Luxembourgish and Luxembourgish residents (Government of Luxembourg, A propos des langues 2008). Esmein also draws attention to the fact that French is one of the working languages in the EU institutions in Luxembourg, increasing the likelihood that EU officials will learn French and use it in day to day life (Magère, Esmein and Poty 1998: 60).
The perceived threats to cultural cohesion led to lobbying activities to enhance the status of Luxembourgish. The group Actioun Lëtzebuergesch was created in the 1970s to encourage locals to speak Luxembourgish in all circumstances and to use the language on street signs, bank notes and stamps (Redinger 2010: 95). A specific problem in that regard was, however, that Luxembourgish was until then basically a spoken language. In fact, the Luxembourgish people had, for a long time, considered German to be the written form of their spoken mother tongue (Magère, Esmein and Poty 1998: 42). In 1946, a first (unsuccessful) attempt was made to introduce an orthography for Luxembourgish, also with a political aim, namely to stress the difference with German. A new orthography was published in 1975 (Arrêté ministeriel portant réforme du système officiel d'orthographe luxembourgeoise). This orthography was slightly altered again in 1999 (Règlement grand-ducal portant réforme du système officiel d'orthographe luxembourgeoise).
As a result, the legislator had to act and in 1984, a Law was finally passed on the use of languages (Loi sur le régime des langues, 24 February 1984), thereby executing the aforementioned Constitutional provision and proclaiming Luxembourgish as the national language, French as legislative, administrative and court language, whereas German and Luxembourgish became administrative as well as court languages.

III. Public language use
National, legislative and administrative languages
The Law of 1984 on the use of languages concerns only public language policy. It reads as follows (own translation from French):
"Article 1
National language
The national language of the Luxembourgish is Luxembourgish.
Article 2
Language of legislation
Statutes and executive Regulations shall be drafted in French. When Statutes and Regulations are accompanied by a translation, only the French text is authentic.
In cases where Regulations other than those mentioned in the previous paragraph are issued by a State organ, municipalities or public authorities in a language other than French, only the text in the language used by that authority shall be authentic.
This article does not derogate from provisions that apply in the field of international agreements.
Article 3
Languages of the administration and in court proceedings
In administrative matters, contentious or non-contentious proceedings, as well as in court proceedings, the French, German or Luxembourgish languages may be used, without prejudice to special provisions regarding certain matters.
Article 4:
Administrative applications
When an application is drafted in Luxembourgish, in French or in German, the administration must reply, insofar as possible, in the language chosen by the applicant.
(…)"
In the main, the lack of definitions in the 1984 Law gives quite some leeway to the authorities. As Magère points out, the terms used are nowhere to be found in Europe (Magère, Esmein and Poty 1998: 9). The usual term "official language" is studiously avoided. Luxembourgish is proclaimed the "national" language, but it is not clear what this status entails (Redinger 2010: 91). Statutes and executive Regulations are, for instance, not drafted in the national language, but exclusively in the "language of legislation", i.e. in French. There is no legal obligation to translate laws into German or into the "national" language, and should a translation be available, only the French version is authentic.
It is true that the Law grants the possibility to draft secondary legislation of State organs, municipalities or public authorities in a language "other than French", without specifying which one, in which case that language is authentic. It seems that, in particular, German is still strongly represented at local level, and therefore used, for instance, in municipal council publications. In the Chamber of Deputies, Luxembourgish may be used in oral debates or for questions, whilst French is used when drafting legislation (Walder 2015; Magère, Esmein and Poty 1998: 39, 40 and 54).
German is also used when the authorities want to make absolutely sure all citizens understand the text, such as tax letters. As Trausch puts it, the guiding principle seems to be: as much French as possible, as much German as necessary (Trausch 1998: 22).
Dealings with public authorities and courts
In administrative matters and before the courts, the French, German or Luxembourgish tongue may be used. These three languages are therefore known as the administrative and court languages (Redinger 2010: 91). The odd caveat clause "without prejudice to special provisions regarding certain matters", makes it, though, questionable whether citizens enjoy enforceable rights. This exception clause seems to concern the courts where language rules are complex and vary from one court to another. In practice, French is the official language of civil and commercial courts, whereas judgments in criminal cases are often delivered in German. Hearings can take place in the three languages, and are then transcribed into French or German (Magère, Esmein and Poty 1998: 40).
Similarly, regarding the linguistic rights of citizens to use one of the administrative languages in dealings with the administration, the caveat clause in article 4, "insofar as possible", also seems to leave quite some leeway for the administration not to use the language of the applicant (Redinger 2010: 91). In point of fact, Luxembourg's administration continues to write almost exclusively in French (Trausch 1998: 21; Frisch 1998: 109). According to Trausch, the exit clause is mainly aimed against Luxembourgish (Trausch 1998: 22). Esmein argues that the current situation is worse than under the Royal Decree of 1834 which obliged the administration to reply in the language of the applicant (Magère, Esmein and Poty 1998: 39).
Furthermore, the term used, "application" (requête), does not seem to cover all dealings between citizens and the administration, but is restricted rather to official and written requests.
It may therefore be argued that French takes precedence over the other languages, German and Luxembourgish, in that order. French is the real official language. German and Luxembourgish have only partial functions, whilst French can be used in all official circumstances (Magère, Esmein and Poty 1998: 36-37; Trausch 1998: 21).
On the other hand, statistical data show that Luxembourgish is the most used language at work, at school or at home (by 70,5% of all residents). These figures, though, depend largely on the individual zones of the country. For instance, in the city of Luxembourg, only 48,8% of residents use the national language. The figures depend also on the nationality, as 96,4% of those residents having Luxembourgish nationality use Luxembourgish (Statec 2013). Other research confirms these findings (Dickes and Berzosa 2010: 4).
Multilingual schooling system
The 1984 Law does not provide for a language policy in the educational system. These rules are laid down in various directives.
To summarise, early childhood and pre-school education are inter alia designed to teach Luxembourgish as the language of communication for all children. At primary school, at the age of six, teaching, reading and writing is in German. French lessons are taught from the end of the second year of primary. All subjects are taught in German throughout primary school. Secondary education is largely split into classical and technical schools. In classical schools, geared towards university, the language of instruction switches from German to French from the fourth year onwards, while German prevails in the vocational (technical) secondary schools (Government of Luxembourg official portal 2015).
The importance of language instruction is clear: 39,4% of school time in primary school and 34,4% of school time in secondary school is dedicated to language instruction (Council of Europe 2006: 15). Government information puts that figure even higher, claiming that language learning over the entire school career accounts for 50% of the curriculum (Government of Luxembourg official portal 2015).
The trilingualism of the Luxembourgish schooling system could be regarded as a model for the future in the EU (Nelde 1993: 62; Frisch 1998: 107). Unfortunately, however, it is also argued that the model is an accumulation of deficits.
First of all, Luxembourgish plays a subordinate role as a written language. This means, according to Redinger, that the national language is essentially still regarded as a marginal dialect (2010: 96-100 and 104).
In addition, German is replaced by French only after a few years of school and pupils do not have the necessary prerequisites for French as a native language (Redinger 2010: 107-119). It appears that most pupils have in fact a triglossic deficit (Nelde 1998: 63). French is spoken really fluently by one fourth of the population, basically those who completed higher education. French enjoys the highest prestige and social status, as only the most educated can speak French easily (Redinger 2008: 113). It is also significant that only 10% of Luxembourgish watch TV in French (Krämer 1998: 124).
In a 2006 Report on the Luxembourgish school system a group of Council of Europe experts was particularly harsh. They concluded that the system cannot achieve its goals, such as social cohesion, integration of newcomers, individual success and a competitive economy (Council of Europe 2006).
The high drop-out rate of students is of particular concern in this regard. In 2005, only 16,7% of young people successfully obtained the secondary school leaving diploma, giving access to university (Redinger 2010: 98). It should be borne in mind that these figures concern the Luxembourgish school system only, students may choose to finish secondary school in one of the neighbouring countries (Belgium, Germany or France), in either French or German. Distances are, after all, small.
An OECD Report of 2013 (Education at a Glance) shows an upper secondary graduation rate of 70% in 2011, the OECD average being at 83%. These figures include diplomas obtained outside the Luxembourgish schooling system, i.e. international and European schools in Luxembourg (where Luxembourgish is not taught) as well as schools in other countries. Moreover, as early as primary school, 17,9% of pupils have an educational delay of one year or more. This is 24,1% for non-Luxembourgish children and 12,2% for Luxembourgish (Government of Luxembourg, Enseignement fondamental 2012: 55 and 56). According to other data, this figure rises to 62,6% for secondary school students (Council of Europe 2006: 18). Besides, only 38,4% of students make it to the classical school (as opposed to vocational training).
It would seem that the various languages of instruction are the main obstacle. According to Reisdoerfer, all specialists agree that Luxembourgish multilingualism is to blame for the learning difficulties which many pupils face (2009: 140). In the same vein, the Childs Rights Ombudsman alleges that the school system does not sufficiently take into account the linguistic backgrounds of the children (Fohal 2013). Portuguese and Italian immigrant children in particular face difficulties with German, whilst Luxembourgish children, mainly from lower social classes which are less exposed to French, face major difficulties with French (Weber 2007: 24).
It is therefore asserted that the Luxembourgish schooling system maintains the same social elite class (Council of Europe 2006: 19). A 2013 UNICEF report confirms these findings: whilst Luxembourg has an overall high ranking in this report, there is one main flaw: the educational system. In the overall ranking, Luxembourg is in 7th position, while for the educational dimension the country is in 22nd position, with a low rate of participation in further education, and, significantly, a low ranking in educational achievement by age 15, based on average score in PISA tests of reading, maths and science literacy, just above Lithuania, Greece and Romania.
Shewbridge et. al. (2012) show that, although a reform of the schooling system has been undertaken in 2009/2010, it is too early to see significant changes, in particular with regard to the results of immigrant children.
A possible solution, namely lowering linguistic requirements in education, does not seem to be a political option, as there is fear of linguistic segregation in the Luxembourgish society by the emergence of two linguistic communities (one composed of Luxembourgish/German-speakers and another of French-speakers) (Krämer 1998: 148).
Horner and Weber argue that the increased use of Luxembourgish in the schooling system has created a fracture between educational policy and actual language practices: Luxembourgish is the language of integration in schools whilst among migrant children French is used as a lingua franca (2015: 246). Research demonstrates that 56,2% of students enrolled in the Luxembourgish school system do not have Luxembourgish as their first language at home and that one out of three pupils (34,3%) do not even have any of the three languages as their first language at home (Ministry of Education 2012: 10). The number of pupils not speaking Luxembourgish has risen to 60% in 2015 (L'Essentiel 22.10.2015 : 3).
In a press interview, the then minister of Education, Mady Delvaux-Stehres confirmed that social cohesion was given top priority (Théry 2013). Others argue that a two-track system (French or German) in fact already exists at secondary school (namely the split between the classical and technical schools) (Weber 2007: 26).
Interestingly, the City information magazine of the Ville de Luxembourg is in French and … English, as in the words of the Mayor, Lydie Polfer, "these two languages allow us to retain the most people" (City 1/2016: 3).
Luxembourgish nationality
To acquire Luxembourgish nationality, proficiency in Luxembourgish is required. The Nationality Act of 2008 (Loi sur la nationalité luxembourgeoise) provides for two cumulative language conditions. Firstly, a "sufficient" active and passive proficiency in either French, German or Luxembourgish is required. No language test is apparently imposed and the level of proficiency is not specified. The second linguistic requirement concerns spoken proficiency in Luxembourgish. The level to be attained is based on the Council of Europe common European framework of reference for languages. It is currently set at B1 for passive oral proficiency and A2 for active oral proficiency. In the aftermath of the referendum which was held on 7 June 2015 and which, inter alia, rejected the granting of voting rights for non-Luxembourgish residents, the government announced its intention to lower these linguistic requirements to A2 for both passive and active proficiency (Orlandi 2015; Kennerknecht 2015; Government of Luxembourg, elections, 2015).

IV. Private language policy
There are no general rules concerning private language use under Luxembourgish law. Economic operators can therefore freely use the language(s) of their choice – including ones other than Luxembourgish, German and French – throughout the country, for example in contracts with employees or in advertisements, etc. In fact, a large language tolerance may be noticed. As to the labelling of food products, for instance, it is sufficient that labels are in one of the three languages, i.e. French, German or Luxembourgish.
The trilingual context has, however, important consequences for working requirements in Luxembourg.
Lawyers
It was EU law that implicitly forced Luxembourg to make language requirements for solicitors explicit. The 1991 Law on the profession of solicitor (Loi sur la profession d'avocat), did not lay down any linguistic requirement for admission to the Luxembourg Bar.
In 2002, however, when transposing Directive 98/5/EC which facilitates practice of the profession of lawyer in another EU Member State than that in which the qualification is obtained, the amended Law provided explicitly that a solicitor needs to be proficient in the administrative and court languages of Luxembourg, meaning French, German and Luxembourgish.
Thewes points out that the language requirements were controversial, as business lawyers in practice need other languages, such as English (2010: 40). The compatibility of these requirements with the Luxembourgish Constitution was confirmed by the Conseil disciplinaire et administratif d'appel in a judgment of 13 July 2004.
The Law does, however, stop short of explaining how proof can be given of sufficient proficiency in these languages. In practice, for candidates with a diploma of secondary school studies in Luxembourg, there is a presumption that the language conditions are met. For other candidates, the Bar organises an oral hearing of the candidate. It is possible to repeat the exam. Moreover, the Bar takes a generous view of language knowledge and most candidates pass the test (Thewes 2010: 51 and 52).
The real problem was with those lawyers already admitted to the Bar in another EU Member State and wanting to exercise their profession in Luxembourg, making use of the possibilities offered by EU law. In 2004, an English solicitor challenged the language requirements in Luxembourg. Mr Wilson, a UK national had practised as a lawyer in Luxembourg for several years under his home country title. Following the language requirements laid down in the 2002 Law, Mr Wilson was requested to attend a hearing to verify his language proficiency in French, German and Luxembourgish. A legal battle ensued and eventually the case was brought before the European Court of Justice.
In 2006, the latter ruled in essence that Directive 98/5 does not allow for any language testing of European lawyers to determine whether they are proficient in the languages of that EU Member State (Van der Jeught 2015: 218-219)
In 2007, following this ruling, Luxembourg abolished the linguistic requirements for EU lawyers practising in Luxembourg (Law of 21 June 2007). They were, however, obliged to use their home-country professional title only and were not entitled to plead before Luxembourgish courts and tribunals (Thewes 2010: 70).
The European Commission sent a reasoned opinion in second infringement proceedings against Luxembourg in 2012, taking issue precisely with the fact that the legislation still required EU lawyers to be proficient in French, German and Luxembourgish to be entitled to perform all professional activities under the Luxembourgish title of avocat. Eventually, in 2013, Luxembourg allowed European lawyers to accede to the Luxembourgish title of avocat if they had practised in the country for more than three years under their home country title and if they were proficient in the language of legislation, namely French (Law of 13 June 2013). However, European lawyers in that case still have to limit their activities to those not requiring proficiency in German or Luxembourgish. Lawyers who do take on activities for which they lack the necessary linguistic abilities are liable to face disciplinary sanctions. In addition, the level of language proficiency required is defined more precisely than was the case previously and is now based on the Council of Europe common European framework of reference for languages. For Luxembourgish and German a passive knowledge (level B2) and an active knowledge (level B1) are required. For French, both active and passive knowledge is set at level B2.
Medical professions
Another example of language requirements can be found in the medical sector. According to information which is made available on the site of the Ministry of Health, a foreign higher education diploma must be translated into French or German in order to get recognised in Luxembourg. For a whole series of medical professions such as nurse, social assistant, podiatrist, etc., the candidate must indicate the level of language knowledge in Luxembourgish, French and German. He or she must also declare, in French or German, to meet the necessary linguistic requirements to exercise the profession at issue in Luxembourg and to understand the three administrative languages, or to be willing to acquire that knowledge. There is no apparent sanction system for those whose "willingness" does not materialize. For that matter, it may be incompatible with EU law to require proficiency in more than one language of the host country (Van der Jeught 2015: 220-223).
Other professions
The trilingual context in Luxembourg may also be relevant for other professions. Research shows that there is a hard core of jobs in public and assimilated offices, as well as in education and small shops (roughly one third of all available jobs), which are reserved for candidates that have all three administrative languages. French is the language that is most often requested in job offers, explicitly or implicitly (91,3%). Luxembourgish is often considered an asset, but not specifically required (Pigeron-Piroth and Fehlen 2005: 16, 24 and 27). Often, job offers do not mention language requirements, but the language in which the advertisement is written (Luxembourgish, French or German) implicitly makes this clear (Pigeron-Piroth and Fehlen 2005: 11).
In the Halbert case, the highest administrative Court of Luxembourg, the Council of State (Conseil d'État), ruled that language requirements, imposed by the Mayor of Luxembourg, as a prerequisite for obtaining a licence as a taxi driver constituted a violation of the freedom to work (droit au travail) laid down in the Constitution. The Council held that proficiency in a specific language is not necessary for the exercise of the profession of taxi driver, as they transport clients speaking various languages, which are not necessarily the local ones.
As to teachers for primary and secondary schools, Luxembourg required until 1996 that candidates had the Luxembourgish nationality. Luxembourg argued that its identity could not be preserved if the majority of teachers came from other EU Member States. The Commission brought infringement proceedings and the Court of Justice ruled that, whilst the preservation of the Member States' national identities is a legitimate aim, that interest can be effectively safeguarded otherwise than by a general exclusion of nationals from other EU Member States. Interestingly, the Court referred to the fact that teachers must still fulfil all the conditions required for recruitment, such as language knowledge (ECJ judgment of 2 July 1996). The Court therefore implicitly allowed for a language condition for teachers.
Similarly, as to a nationality condition imposed on notaries, on the grounds that proficiency in the Luxembourgish language was required to exercise that profession, the Court held that, while the preservation of the national identities of the EU Member States is a legitimate aim, that interest could be effectively safeguarded otherwise than by a general exclusion of nationals of the other EU Member States (ECJ judgment of 24 May 2011). The Court stopped short, however, of allowing for a language condition to be imposed.

V. Concluding Remarks
The national motto of Luxembourg "Mir wëlle bleiwe wat mir sin" [We want to remain who we are] is the expression of the country's historical struggle for national sovereignty and identity. The referendum on inter alia voting rights for non-Luxembourgish residents, which was held on 7 June 2015 confirmed that conviction.
This motto is reflected in a unique trilingual regime, not least in the status and the use of Luxembourgish. The national language is the cornerstone of the current language law and policy, as it is considered essential for identity and integration of newcomers in society.
However, this policy seems to be incongruous with the fact that, rather than Luxembourgish, it is French which takes precedence as the legal language and which is used as the only real official language in all circumstances. Moreover, French is also the real lingua franca, used in most communications between the different linguistic communities in Luxembourg.
From a purely legal point of view, there is no full multilingualism in Luxembourg, as not all three languages may be used in all circumstances. The legal status of French entails that all citizens must, in practice, be proficient in that language. Significantly, the Law of 1984 which grants linguistic rights, is available in … French only. Moreover, real enforceable language rights are limited.
Yet, in stark contrast, one could very well acquire, in theory, Luxembourgish nationality without any proficiency in French, Luxembourgish being the language that is considered most important in that context. In the same vein, one observer remarks: "Who ever heard of a country that required a language test in one language to obtain the nationality, yet to apply for it you need to fill out the forms in another? Oh wait that would be Luxembourg!"(Walder 2015).
This antagonism between Luxembourgish as the language of identity and integration, on the one hand, and French as the legal language and the de facto common language, on the other, gives rise to a certain degree of linguistic segregation between residents.
In addition, this apparent friction leads to a schooling system which is severely criticised as the emphasis on language instruction puts a huge burden on students in general, and the lower social classes and immigrants in particular. Linguistic requirements are blamed for high drop-out rates. It is argued that the use of Luxembourgish has created a fracture between educational policy and actual language practices, as Luxembourgish is the language of integration in schools whilst among migrant children French is used as a lingua franca (Horner and Weber 2015: 246).
National multilingualism is sometimes also at odds with EU law. A clear example is the profession of lawyer. Since French, German and Luxembourgish may all three be used as court languages, European solicitors faced greater language requirements in Luxembourg than in a monolingual EU Member State. Following legal action by the European Commission, language requirements for lawyers coming from other EU Member States have been softened: at present proficiency in French only is sufficient to practice as a foreign solicitor in Luxembourg. In the same vein, it is questionable under EU law that for instance medical staff from other EU countries may be required to be proficient in all three languages of Luxembourg. It could be argued that EU law thus indirectly increases the importance of French. Conversely, the Court of Justice of the EU has implicitly confirmed that language requirements for teachers are compatible with EU law.
On a more positive note, it must be conceded that language quarrels between different communities on one and the same territory have thus far largely been avoided in Luxembourg. A common process that, where multilingualism exists, each language community is eager to make its own language the primary and eventually the only language used in the region (Posner 1991: 127 and 132) has been aptly avoided. This language peace is the result of the admirable flexibility and tolerance with which linguistic issues are dealt with. For foreign legal observers, it is in this regard astonishing that principles such as legal certainty with regard to language rights are not an issue in Luxembourgish constitutional and administrative law. In point of fact, very few examples of linguistic disputes in administrative and constitutional law can be found.
The main challenge for the Luxembourgish society in the near future is, however, to foster equilibrium between the protection of identity, social cohesion and multilingualism. Enhancing the legal position of German and/or Luxembourgish (e.g. as to the Constitution and the Law of 1984) could be an option to improve coherence of language law in Luxembourg.

References

Scholarship

BONN, Alex, Le Contentieux Administratif en droit Luxembourgeois, Éditions Armand Pfeiffer, Luxembourg, 1966, 229p

DICKES, Paul and BERZOSA, Guayarmina, Pays multiculturel, pays multilingue? Un modèle pragmatique pour l'analyse des relations langagières au Luxembourg, Les cahiers du CEPS/INSTEAD, 2010/16, 17p

EYSCHEN, P., Das Staatsrecht des Grossherzogtums Luxemburg, Verlag, Tübingen, 1910, 231p

FRISCH, Jean-Claude, Le Luxembourg, pays multilingue; La place du français dans l'enseignement au Grand-Duché de Luxembourg in MAGÈRE, Philippe, ESMEIN, Bernard and POTY, Max (eds.), La situation de la langue française parmi les autres langues en usage au Grand-Duché de Luxembourg, Centre culturel français de Luxembourg, Centre d'études et de recherches européennes Robert Schuman, Université de Metz, Luxembourg, 1998, 107-118

HORNER, Kristine and WEBER, Jean-Jacques, Multilingual education and the politics of language in Luxembourg, in PEERSMAN, Catharina, RUTTEN, Gijsbert and VOSTERS, Rik, Past, Present and Future of a Language Border, Mouton De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston, 2015, 233-253

MAGÈRE, Philippe, ESMEIN, Bernard and POTY, Max (eds.), La situation de la langue française parmi les autres langues en usage au Grand-Duché de Luxembourg, Centre culturel français de Luxembourg, Centre d'études et de recherches européennes Robert Schuman, Université de Metz, Luxembourg, 1998, 182p
MÜLLER, R., Les débuts de la littérature luxembourgophone, Projet Formatioun Lëtzebuergesch, ULG-Campus d'Arlon, 17 February 2007
NELDE, Peter Hans, Language conflicts in multilingual Europe – prospects for 1993, in COULMAS, Florian (ed.), A Language policy for the European Community – Prospects and Quandaries, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York, 1991, 59-73
PEERSMAN, Catharina, RUTTEN, Gijsbert and VOSTERS, Rik, Past, Present and Future of a Language Border, Mouton De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston, 2015, 277p

PIGERON-PIROTH, Isabelle and FEHLEN, Fernand, Les langues dans les offres d'emploi du Luxemburger Wort 1984-2004, Université du Luxembourg, 2005, 27p

SCHMITT, Paul, Précis de droit constitutionnel – Commentaire de la Constitution luxembourgeoise, Saint Paul, Luxembourg, 2009, 311p

POSNER, R., Society, civilization, mentality: Prolegomena to a language policy for Europe, in COULMAS, F. (ed.), A Language policy for the European Community – Prospects and Quandaries, Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin/New York, 1991, 308p

REDINGER, Daniël, Multilingual Luxembourg: Language Attitudes and Policies, Language at the University of Essex, 2008, 107-119

REDINGER, Daniël, Language Planning and Policy on Linguistic Boundaries: the case of Luxembourg, in McCALL MILLAR, Robert (ed.), Marginal Dialects: Scotland, Ireland and beyond, Forum for Research on the Languages of Scotland and Ireland, Aberdeen, 2010, 90-106

REISDOERFER, Joseph, Analyse critique de la nouvelle politique linguistique éducative du Grand Duché de Luxembourg, Synergies, 2009, 137-146

SHEWBRIDGE, Claire, EHREN, Melanie, SANTIAGO, Paulo and TAMASSIA, Claudia, OECD Reviews of Evaluation and Assessment in Education: Luxembourg 2012, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2012, 156p

SPIELMANN, Dean, THEWES, Marc and REDING, Luc, Recueil de la jurisprudence administrative du Conseil d'État luxembourgeois (1985-1995), Bruylant, Brussels, 1996, 639p

THEWES, Marc, La profession d'avocat au Grand-Duché de Luxembourg, Larcier, Brussels, 2010, 454p

THILL, Jean, Constitutions et Institutions politiques luxembourgeoises, Saint-Paul, Luxembourg, 1978, 358p

TRAUSCH, Gilbert, La situation du français au Luxembourg: une prééminence précaire dans un pays d'expression trilingue in MAGÈRE, Philippe, ESMEIN, Bernard and POTY, Max (eds.), La situation de la langue française parmi les autres langues en usage au Grand-Duché de Luxembourg, Centre culturel français de Luxembourg, Centre d'études et de recherches européennes Robert Schuman, Université de Metz, Luxembourg, 1998, 19-33
VAN DER JEUGHT, Stefaan, EU Language Law, Europa Law Publishing, Groningen, 2015, 303p
WEBER, Jean Jacques, Rethinking Language-in-Education Policy in Luxembourg, Forum, vol. 264, 2007, 24-26

International reports

Council of Europe, Profil de la politique linguistique éducative – Grand-Duché de Luxembourg, 2005-2006, 61p

OECD (2013), Education at a Glance 2013: OECD Indicators, OECD Publishing, Paris, 2013, 436p, available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eag-2013-en (last assessed 19.12.2015)

UNICEF, Child well-being in rich countries, A comparative overview, Innocenti Report Card 11, Unicef Office of Research, Florence, 2013, 56 p.


Government information

City, Magazine officiel de la Ville de Luxembourg, 1/2016.

Government of Luxembourg, Information and Press service, About… Languages in Luxembourg, 2008, 6p

Government of Luxembourg official portal, Which languages at school ?, available at http://www.luxembourg.public.lu/en/le-grand-duche-se-presente/langues/utilisation-langues/ecole/index.html (last assessed 19.12.2015).

Government of Luxembourg, elections, available at http://www.elections.public.lu/fr/index.html (last assessed 2.1.2016)

Ministry of Education, Ouverture aux langues à l'école – Vers des compétences plurilingues et pluriculturelles, 2010, 90p

Ministry of Education, Enseignement fondamental: Cycles 1 à 4 Éducation différenciée, 2010/2011, 2012, 78p

Statec (Institut national de la statistique et des études économiques), Luxembourg in figures, 2012, 46p

Statec, Les langues parlées au travail, à l'école et/ou à la maison, Recensement de la population 2011, April 2013, available at http://www.statistiques.public.lu/fr/publications/series/rp2011/2013/13-13-langues/index.html (last assessed 19.12.2015)



Legislation

EU Law
Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained, OJ L 77/36 of 14.3.1998.
Constitutional Provisions

Constitution of 17 October 1868, Mémorial 23 of 22.10.1868, 220, as amended


Legal Provisions

Loi no 1709b sur l'instruction primaire, 26 July 1843, Mémorial A no 39 of 1843, 561

Loi sur le régime des langues, 24 February 1984, Mémorial A no 16 of 27.2.1984, 196

Loi sur la profession d'avocat, 10 August 1991, Mémorial A no 58 of 27.8.1991, 1110

Loi portant transposition en droit luxembourgeois de la Directive 98/5/CE du Parlement européen et du Conseil du 16 février 1998 visant à faciliter l'exercice permanent de la profession d'avocat dans un Etat membre autre que celui où la qualification a été acquise […], 13 November 2002, Mémorial A no 140 of 17.12.2002, 3202

Loi portant modification - 1. de la loi du 13 novembre 2002 portant transposition en droit luxembourgeois de la Directive 98/5/CE […], 21 June 2007, Mémorial A no 101 of 26.6.2007, 1856

Loi sur la nationalité luxembourgeoise, 23 October 2008, Mémorial A no 158 of 27.10.2008, 2222

Loi modifiant la loi modifiée du 10 août 1991 sur la profession d'avocat, 13 June 2013, Mémorial A no 102 of 21.6.2013, 1478



Regulations

Edit, Ordonnance et Règlement des Archiducs nos Princes Souverains, sur le fait des bois, 14 September 1617, available at http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjku7yV35LKAhUCDw8KHX52AlQQFggdMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.legilux.public.lu%2Fleg%2Fa%2Farchives%2F1617%2F0001%2Fa001.pdf&usg=AFQjCNH-fwltjll9_Dc4lVbEj1pANHES_A (last assessed 2.1.2016).

Arrêté contenant règlement sur le recouvrement, 16 thermidor an VIII (4 August 1800), available at http://www.legilux.public.lu/leg/a/archives/1800/0002/a002.pdf#page=1 (last assessed 19.12.2015)

Arrêté royal grand-ducal contenant des modifications aux dispositions existantes au sujet des diverses langues en usage dans le royaume», 4 June 1830, Mémorial A no 33 of 23.6.1830, 361

Arrêté royal grand-ducal concernant l'usage des langues allemande et française dans les actes publics, 22 February 1834, Mémorial A no 18 of 20.3.1841, 18

Règlement de la députation permanente sur l'exercice du droit d'affouage et autres émoluments communaux, 13 July 1837, Mémorial A no 1 of 13.7.1837, 1

Arrêté no 8 relatif à la réimpression de l'arrêté de sa Majesté du 22 février 1834, 19 March 1841, Mémorial A no 18 of 20.3.1841, 113

Verordnung über das Verbot des Gebrauchs der Französischen Sprache in der Öffentlichkeit, 1 June 1941, exhibit available at the Musée national de la résistance, Esch-sur-Alzette (Luxembourg), visited on 8 June 2013

Arrêté ministeriel portant réforme du système officiel d'orthographe luxembourgeoise, 10 October 1975, Mémorial B no 68 of 16.11.1976, 1

Règlement grand-ducal portant réforme du système officiel d'orthographe luxembourgeoise, 30 July 1999, Mémorial, A no 112 of 11.8.1999, 2040

Règlement grand-ducal concernant l'étiquetage et la presentation des denrées alimentaires ainsi que la publicité faite à leur égard, 14 December 2000, Mémorial A no 138 of 27.12.2000, 2990


Judgments
Court of Justice of the EU (ECJ)

ECJ judgment of 24 May 2011, Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, case C-51/08, ECR 2011, I-4231

ECJ judgment of 19 September 2006, Graham J. Wilson v Ordre des avocats du barreau de Luxembourg, case C-506/04, ECR 2006, I-8613

ECJ judgment of 19 September 2006, Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, case C-193/05, ECR 2006, I-8673

ECJ judgment of 2 July 1996, Commission v Grand Duchy of Luxembourg, case C-473/93, ECR 1996, I-3207


Conseil d'État

Judgment of 21 March, 1990, Halbert, 8296, see Spielmann, D., Thewes, M. and Reding, L., Recueil de la jurisprudence administrative du Conseil d'´Etat luxembourgeois (1985-1995), Brussels, Bruylant, 1996, no 630, 192-193



Press articles
FOHAL, Julie, Des efforts d'éducation restent encore à réaliser, L'Essentiel, 11 April 2013, 6

KENNERKNECHT, Serge, Konflikt statt Integration – zum Nationalitätengesetz, Tageblatt, 22 October 2015, 8

ORLANDI, Virginie, Nationalité luxembourgeoise: des conditions assouplies, Luxemburger Wort, 8 October 2015, available at http://www.wort.lu/fr/politique/avant-projet-de-loi-nationalite-luxembourgeoise-des-conditions-assouplies-561688200c88b46a8ce61d53 (last assessed 19.12.2015)

THÉRY, Patrick, J'ai apprécié chaque jour (interview with the minister of education, Mady Delvaux-Stehres), L'Essentiel, 13 September 2013, 5

VACON, Mathieu, Le Luxembourgeois domine les langues, L'Essentiel, 26 April 2013, 1 and 5

WALDER, Adam, Are Luxembourg's official languages treated equally?, Luxemburger Wort, 6 April 2015, available at http://www.wort.lu/en/community/are-luxembourg-s-official-languages-treated-equally-5299aad0e4b0a66dbd89a4b0 (last assessed 19.12.2015)

X, Désaccords linguistiques, L'Essentiel, 22 October 2015, 3

X, Des tests de langue trop faciles?, L'Essentiel, 9 December 2015, 3



Dr. Stefaan van der Jeught works as an official in the Directorate Communication of the Court of Justice of the European Union. He is affiliated to the Centre for European law at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB). His research and publications focus in the main on judicial protection under EU law and legal aspects of language policies.