Place sign dispute

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Bilingual place name on a place-name sign in Carinthia

A decade-long controversy in an area of ​​the Austrian state of Carinthia over the number of traffic signs with bilingual topographical inscriptions in German and Slovene is called a local sign dispute . After a long history, it came to a head in 1972 and was only politically resolved in 2011.

The relevant place-name signs and signposts are located in a region with an old-established Slovenian minority . The Austrian Federal Constitution guarantees this population group a place-name-related signage in their mother tongue . So far, so-called bilingual place-name signs have been set up in 80 localities , as are also common in South Tyrol (Italian minority) or the Danish , Frisian , Low German and Sorbian settlement areas in the Federal Republic of Germany. The establishment of further place-name signs with bilingual inscriptions is required by the Slovene ethnic group, but has so far been rejected on the grounds of the alleged majority will of the population and because of the alleged lack of a legal basis. The rejection front is particularly supported by the Carinthian Homeland Service and regional politicians. Above all, the politician Jörg Haider ( FPÖ / BZÖ ), who has since passed away, has been effective in the media against bilingual place-name signs. In Burgenland , where the Croatian-speaking minority is also entitled to bilingual boards, there were also problems, but no controversy comparable to that in Carinthia.

Historical development

Map at carinthia municipalities (Slovenes) 1971.png
Map at carinthia municipalities (Slovenes) .png
Areas with a Slovene population in 1971 (above) and 2001 (below):
  • 5-10%
  • 10-20%
  • 20-30%
  • > 30%

    • The bilingualism of Carinthia goes back historically to the time of the Great Migration . After the founding of the Slavic principality of Carantania in the seventh century, Franconia and Bavaria pushed back the Slavs residing in the Alpine region (western border: Toblacher Feld , Traunviertel ) to southern Carinthia in the eighth century . Even after the First World War, more than half of the population there was Slovene-speaking. (More details: see history of Carinthia )

    This coexistence and coexistence of two languages ​​- German and minority language - was largely problem-free. The root of the street sign dispute lies in the nationalism of the Austro-Hungarian peoples and their urge for national self-determination. After the defeat of the Habsburg monarchy in World War I , the southern Slavs united to form the SHS state (initially the state of the Slovenes, Croats and Serbs and from December 1, 1918 the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes), while Carinthia became a federal state of the new German republic (German Austria / Austria). With reference to the Slovene-speaking majority of the population in the south of Carinthia, SHS troops occupied these parts of the country with the aim of integrating them into the SHS state. In the following border battles (" Carinthian defensive battle " from the German-Austrian point of view, "the battle for the northern border" from the Slovenian-Yugoslavian point of view) armed volunteers led by the later head of the People's Union for Germanism Abroad (VDA) , Hans Steinacher ( "Victory in German Night") bloody fights with Slovenian volunteer associations and SHS troops. These struggles finally drew the attention of the victorious powers , who organized a referendum to resolve the situation peacefully . The vote took place on October 10, 1920 and, despite a Slovene majority in the voting area in Zone A, ended with a majority vote (approx. 60 percent) against the division of Carinthia and for it to remain with the Republic of Austria. Before that, the Carinthian provincial government had made numerous promises to the Carinthian Slovenes to encourage them to vote pro-Austria (see referendum in 1920 in Carinthia ).

    The coexistence of the two ethnic groups was largely unproblematic even in the interwar period. It was not until the Nazi dictatorship that tensions returned. The aryanization policy of the National Socialists provided for a population exchange. It was planned to relocate the Carinthian Slovenes to the south and, in return, to relocate ethnic Germans from Yugoslavia. As a result, 1097 Carinthian Slovenes (221 families) were deported from the German Reich in April 1942 on Himmler's orders, under the direction of Alois Maier-Kaibitsch . Towards the end of the Second World War, it was above all retaliatory actions by the partisans who were particularly active in Carinthia that led to distrust among the German population. Numerous German-speaking Carinthians were abducted and murdered by partisans in the last days of the war and also in the months after. Furthermore, Yugoslav troops tried again to claim the Slovene-speaking parts of Carinthia for Yugoslavia and, among other things, briefly reoccupied the provincial capital of Klagenfurt . However, they then had to withdraw, mainly under pressure from the British , who administered Carinthia as an occupying power .

    But even in spite of this problematic turning point, the following 1950s and 1960s were largely free of conflict. On the one hand, both ethnic groups concentrated on reconstruction, but on the other hand, many projects that were important for the Slovenian minority were implemented (numerous bilingual kindergartens and elementary schools, bilingual grammar school, Slovenian-language radio and television programs, etc.) Only the place-name sign was largely left out.

    The climate only worsened in the 1970s; Especially before the 50th anniversary of the Carinthian referendum, there were repeated actions against one-sided signs with German inscriptions. In some cases, the German place names have been smeared over or supplemented by the Slovenian place name (for example in Klagenfurt and Hermagor ). On July 6, 1972, the National Council passed against the votes of the ÖVP and FPÖ the "Federal Act, with the provisions on the affixing of bilingual topographical designations and inscriptions in the areas of Carinthia with a Slovene or mixed population." Federal Chancellor Bruno Kreisky put up the first bilingual place-name signs. In total, the place-name signs in 205 villages were to be signposted in two languages. In the course of the so-called local sign tower, bilingual signs were removed or destroyed over the whole of southern Carinthia, sometimes in front of the camera and in some cases in the presence of the gendarmerie (federal police) . The violent reaction from parts of the population led to the resignation of the then governor Hans Sima and the establishment of the so-called local board commission .

    In July 1976 the National Council passed the National Ethnic Groups Act and the amendment to the Census Act, which created the conditions for the secret survey of the German mother tongue. This (partly controversial) census, which was boycotted by many Carinthian Slovenes , took place on November 14, 1976. Implementation was severely hindered in various municipalities. This included the occupation of voting booths, robbery and burning of the ballot box in the municipality of Zell . Nevertheless, the participation was around 87 percent. In order to compensate for the partial boycott of the survey, “invalid”, “other” and “votes not cast” were partially assigned to the Slovene ethnic group on the basis of the average participation.

    As a result, the Carinthian parties proposed that bilingual place-name signs be put up in ten municipalities (including the municipality of Zell (no result)), which was provided for in the topography ordinance of 1977. Of the 91 localities resulting from this, the bilingual boards have been set up in 77 so far.

    The definition of the Windisch dialect (567 speakers in the 2001 census according to the “Windisch” category, which was only introduced in 1939) repeatedly causes conflicts. In line with linguistics, the Carinthian “national Slovenes” see Windisch only as a Slovene dialect and include the “Windisch-speakers” in their language group, while those in the censuses deliberately use “Windisch” and not “Slovenian” as a colloquial language in order not to count to be counted among the Carinthian Slovenes .

    21st century

    As early as 2001, the Constitutional Court (VfGH) made a fundamental ruling on the Carinthian local sign dispute (listing in the municipalities with a 10 percent share within a year). In 2004 the lawyer Rudi Vouk called the VfGH again on the question of the failure to implement this.

    On April 29, 2005, the then Federal Chancellor Wolfgang Schüssel announced an interim result of the fifth consensus conference on the settlement of the dispute: The 20 towns outstanding since 1977 were to be signposted in two languages ​​by October 26, 2005 ( national holiday ). Governor Jörg Haider rejected the request for place-name signs in about 150 other places with more than 10 percent Slovenians with reference to the "interests of the majority". The Carinthian FPÖ already describes Haider's approval in the consensus conference as “betrayal of the Carinthian population”. While Federal President Heinz Fischer sees the bilingual place-name signs as a sign that a respected minority lives here, Jörg Haider only wanted to put up these place-name signs after a secret census with a survey of the mother tongue.

    On May 12, 2005, in good time before the 50th anniversary of the State Treaty on May 15, 2005 and in some cases in the presence of high-ranking politicians (Federal Chancellor Schüssel, Governor Haider and others), bilingual place-name signs were put up in Carinthia for the first time in a long time. Protests had been announced in one of the five affected towns, so celebrations were not held. The following night two of the newly installed place-name signs were damaged.

    The following places received bilingual place-name signs:

    After discussions about further boards between the ethnic groups concerned did not lead to an agreement, the Carinthian governor Jörg Haider and his deputy Peter Ambrozy (SPÖ) delegated the decision to the federal government again in June 2005. The federal government could only have passed a new topography ordinance unanimously; It was generally assumed that the BZÖ ministers would not agree to a topography ordinance in which more bilingual place-name signs would be prescribed than before.

    In December 2005, the VfGH decided that the Slovene place names 'Pliberk' and 'Drveša vas' must be used on the Bleiburg and Bleiburg- Ebersdorf town signs in addition to the German ones. In January 2006, Governor Haider stated in an ORF interview that in order not to have to implement the ruling of the Constitutional Court, he wanted to move the affected place-name signs by a few meters and thus make the decision ineffective and obsolete. This project, known as the movement of the town sign , was actually implemented on February 8, 2006 with a large media presence. Haider justified his approach with the fact that, in his opinion, the Constitutional Court had exceeded its powers. He also declared the resistance to bilingual place-name signs as a reaction to the "constant attempt by the Slovenes in recent decades to [...] incorporate part of Carinthia." The Republic of Slovenia rejected the accusation of asserting territorial claims on Lower Carinthia .

    On May 11, 2006 a regulation was sent for assessment, which came into force on July 1, 2006 and provided for the installation of additional bilingual place-name signs by the end of 2009. The relocation of the place-name sign was declared unconstitutional with a decision by the VfGH on June 26, 2006. In an initial reaction, Jörg Haider stated that he no longer wanted to put any signposts in these places.

    On June 29, 2006, Governor Haider announced that the governing parties BZÖ and ÖVP had reached an agreement on the question of place-name signs: by 2009, bilingual place-name signs should be placed in places with more than 10 percent of the Slovene-speaking population and those in communities with more than 15 percent of the Slovene-speaking population lie. In total, there should then be bilingual place-name signs in 141 Carinthian towns. In order to secure this agreement constitutionally, the consent of the SPÖ was necessary. The SPÖ had made its approval dependent on the approval of the Central Association of Carinthian Slovenes . This had also approved the original version of the compromise signpost (in contrast to the Central Council of Carinthian Slovenes ). This initiative ultimately failed because of the “ opening clause ”, which regulated how places other than those named in the compromise could be signposted in the future. Governor Haider had this opening clause changed, but the SPÖ and the Central Council of Carinthian Slovenes only wanted to approve the original version.

    From August 25, 2006, there was a new development in the street sign dispute. Carinthian governor Jörg Haider began to convert all bilingual place-name signs in Carinthia back into monolingual, with great media interest. The national minority law should be complied with by means of Slovene- language additional signs of much smaller format that are hung under the actual place-name sign. However, the writing on these additional signs is smaller than on the official place-name signs according to the Road Traffic Act (StVO), and they do not have the usual layout of a place-name sign, as they lack the blue border. As a reason for this "compromise solution", Haider cited that the StVO does not tolerate any "confusing or overcrowded designations" on the place-name signs:

    “I think that the majority of the population can live with it, I think that drivers in particular can live well with the fact that they can also find standardized signage in Carinthia. I think that the ethnic group can live with the fact that they get an extra label that, so to speak, underlines their importance. "

    The Federal Chancellery, on the other hand, assessed after an initial examination that the new form of the place-name signs was not correct, since the ethnic group law required the use of bilingual topographical designations, whereby this must be expressed in "an equal, non-discriminatory form". This equality would also result from the Topography Ordinance-Carinthia . The Constitutional Court was also critical of Haider's action: "This approach speaks for itself and is therefore not commented on by the VfGH," VfGH spokesman Christian Neuwirth let through criticism. The other parties generally rejected Haider's initiative and called it an "election campaign gag". The reactions ranged from “Goat jumps by the governor” ( SPÖ ) and “Fasching im August” ( FPÖ ) to “a new tower of town signs” ( ÖVP ) to “It's enough once, politicians have to obey laws” ( Greens ). The representatives of the Slovenian minority also sharply criticized Haider's actions. They spoke of a violation of European minority standards that endangered social peace and called on the public prosecutor's office to investigate Haider and Dörfler on suspicion of abuse of office.

    Constitutional lawyers described Haider's reasoning that bilingual place-name signs according to the Road Traffic Act (StVO) are "confusing" or "overcrowded" as "nonsense". In addition, the state treaty, i.e. the federal government, is decisive for the design of place-name signs if these concern minority rights, since the StVO only regulates the question of where the place-name signs are to be set up, but does not expressly comment on linguistic regulations. Therefore, in this case, the federal government would have the authority to decide on the design of the place-name signs, and the state of Carinthia would have to act accordingly. In December, on the 28th. J., the Constitutional Court also declared the measure of the additional signs to be unconstitutional; it would still be monolingual signs, since the additional signs were not part of the place-name sign.

    Haider later announced that he would completely dismantle the town signs in these villages and replace them with 50 km / h speed limit signs. Various constitutional lawyers declared such a procedure to be unlawful, as place-name signs not only regulate speed limits.

    At the beginning of February 2007, the Klagenfurt public prosecutor initiated preliminary investigations against the Carinthian governor Jörg Haider and the road construction consultant Gerhard Dörfler on suspicion of abuse of office. The proceedings against Dörfler were discontinued in July 2009 with legally questionable justification; against Haider it became obsolete after his death.

    On February 22, 2007 the signposts in Bleiburg and Ebersdorf were redesigned again. The small additional signs with the Slovene name of the places were mounted on the place-name sign itself, in the lower half of the blue border.

    In mid-2007, Federal Chancellor Gusenbauer made people sit up and take notice when he said "... either there will be a solution by June 28, 2007 ... otherwise the rule of law will take its course ...". He announced that he was striving for a broad consensus, but that approval from the Carinthian governor was not necessary. However, a solution to this conflict was not within reach on the date mentioned. Rather, this topic is to be rehashed in autumn 2007. If there was then no consensus either, the unlawful situation would be retained, at least until new elections at the state or federal level allow other political constellations.

    On July 9, 2010, the Constitutional Court ruled that the tablets installed in Bleiburg / Pliberk were unconstitutional. The verdict was implemented "surprisingly" quickly by the new governor Dörfler ; As early as July 13, boards were set up in the same font, in German above and Slovenian below.

    Karner paper

    Since 2005, a compromise proposal by Stefan Karner has been referred to as the Karner paper , which finds broad support in the local sign dispute among the Carinthian population and political decision-makers. 50 years after the Austrian State Treaty, the Karner paper provides for the gradual affixing of bilingual labels in a total of 158 locations in Carinthia by 2010, as well as an " opening clause " which, under certain conditions, should enable additional locations to be included after 2010 under certain conditions. The moratorium should be based on a broad information campaign in Carinthia. The Karner paper was the basis of the consensus conferences held by Chancellor Wolfgang Schüssel in 2005 and 2006, as well as the parliamentary bills and government ordinances in 2005 and 2006.

    Memorandum and constitutional regulation (2011)

    An agreement was reached at the beginning of 2011, which both the federal government and the Carinthian provincial government approved. On April 1, State Secretary Josef Ostermayer and Governor Dörfler announced that they had agreed to put up bilingual place-name signs in all places with at least 17.5 percent Slovene-speaking population. The 2001 census is used as the basis for this. The federal law on the new local sign ordinance is to be passed before summer 2011. Valentin Inzko, as negotiator of the Slovenian Associations, approved the agreement in parts and with the reservation that the result would first be submitted to the committees of the Slovenian Associations for a resolution.

    Should the agreement in this form become a federal constitutional law, this could also have an impact on the federal state of Burgenland , where currently 51 bilingual boards indicate a minority share of over ten percent.

    Due to the partial rejection of the last negotiation results by one of the Slovenian associations, it had to be renegotiated. In the meantime, Federal President Fischer and the Slovenian President Danilo Türk met, both of whom were of the opinion that the percentages of the population groups should not be the basis for the place-name sign, but that the places should be anchored in law by name. In addition, the place-name sign question should be part of a larger package.

    On April 26, 2011, all those involved agreed to a new round of negotiations in a memorandum in which 164 locations in 24 municipalities are laid down. Another point of the memorandum concerns the waiver of a minority determination. In those places where bilingual place-name signs are to be set up, Slovene should also be recognized as the second official language.

    A Carinthian-wide referendum was carried out between June 6th and 17th on the negotiated solution. With a turnout of 33 percent, 68 percent of the eligible voters voted for the solution, 32 percent rejected it. The former President of the Constitutional Court Karl Korinek , among others, has considerable reservations about the fact that such a regional referendum on a constitutional law, which, according to Dörfler, should be carried out by letter, is even legally possible .

    In July 2011, the National and Federal Councils adopted the national minority group law to implement the memorandum with constitutional status and signed by Federal President Heinz Fischer.

    Legal Aspects

    The entitlement of the Slovenian and Burgenland-Croat minorities to bilingual place-name signs and school lessons in their mother tongue results from Article 7, paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Austrian State Treaty , which is binding under international law . The mentioned clauses 2 and 3, along with clause 4, are part of Austrian constitutional law and are therefore binding for the domestic design of the legal framework for minority policy.

    Section 3 of Article 7 Rights of the Slovenian and Croatian minorities relevant for the setting up of bilingual place-name signs reads as follows:

    "Art. 7 3. In the administrative and judicial districts of Carinthia, Burgenland and Styria with a Slovene, Croatian or mixed population, the Slovene or Croatian language is permitted as an official language in addition to German. In such districts, the names and inscriptions of a topographical nature are written in Slovene or Croatian as well as in German. "

    In 1976 the National Council of Austria passed the Ethnic Groups Act. The relevant paragraph 2, paragraph 1, number 2 read as follows:

    "§ 2. (1) By ordinances of the federal government in agreement with the main committee of the National Council, after hearing the relevant state government, the following shall be determined:

    1. ...
    2. The parts of the area in which, due to the relatively large number (a quarter) of the ethnic group members living there, topographical designations are to be used in both languages.
    3. ... "

    This law therefore provided for the establishment of bilingual topographical markings for those communities or districts in which at least 25 percent of the population profess to be a Slovene-speaking ethnic group. In an ordinance issued in 1977, the Topography Ordinance for Carinthia , the national minority law was specified in more detail and the communities or parts of the community in which bilingual topographical inscriptions must be placed were specified. In another ordinance ( Ordinance on Slovene Place Names), the Slovene names of the localities were officially established.

    Ruling by the Constitutional Court

    The Constitutional Court saw in his 2001 and the end of 2005 adopted findings laid down in the Law on Ethnic Groups share of 25 percent as too high and therefore as unconstitutional because it did not comply with Article 7 para. 3 of the State Treaty. In substantiating the findings, the constitutional judges referred to the history of the State Treaty and the "current Austrian judicial practice", according to which a mixed population corresponds to a "not entirely insignificant (minority) percentage" and put a share of around 10 Percentage of Slovene-speaking residents in a municipality as a sufficient criterion for setting up bilingual topographical inscriptions. At the end of 2005 another twenty cases were pending before the Constitutional Court on this issue.

    The trigger for the treatment of the legal question by the Constitutional Court was a (deliberately brought about) speeding violation (65 km / h instead of the permitted 50 km / h) by Rudolf Vouk, a member of the ethnic group and active in ethnic group politics, in St. Kanzian on Lake Klopeiner See . In order to reach a legal dispute in this regard and thus to make it possible to appeal to the Constitutional Court, he filed a voluntary report, whereupon the administrative criminal proceedings were initiated. Rudolf Vouk appealed against the penalty notice and ultimately lodged a complaint with the Constitutional Court because , in his opinion , the beginning of the local area was not properly announced by the monolingual town sign of St. Kanzian, on which the Slovenian place name was missing. For this reason, there is also no speed limit of 50 km / h. Contrary to a widespread opinion, the complainant Rudolf Vouk did not claim that he could not have read the purely German-language inscription on the place-name sign. This would also have been irrelevant for the application of the speed limit. The complaint itself was also rejected by the Constitutional Court, since according to the Constitutional Court there is no subjective right of members of the ethnic group to bilingual place-name signs.
    In addition to the rules of the road traffic regulations, which are associated with the concept of the local area, other regulations, such as noise protection measures, become obsolete due to unconstitutional site signs.

    The monolingual place-name sign for St. Kanzian am Klopeiner See, which was unlawfully repealed by the Constitutional Court, was re-erected by the Völkermarkt district authority - again monolingual, but offset by a few meters. Other solutions such as additional panels and the small panels installed in Bleiburg were also rejected.

    The Constitutional Court also repealed parts of the National Ethnic Groups Act 1976 and the Topography Ordinance 1977 and named at least about ten percent of the Slovene-speaking population as a prerequisite for the setting up of bilingual place-name signs in accordance with the provisions of the Austrian State Treaty . Another point of contention turned out to be the formulation of the VfGH that the required ten percent of Slovene speakers would have to exist for a “longer period of time”. Since the proportion of Slovene-speaking Carinthians has steadily decreased in the last century due to the ongoing assimilation (1971: 20,972; 2001: 14,010), both sides try to interpret this demand in their favor as far as possible.

    See also

    literature

    • The place-sign question from an expert's point of view. Critical lighting . In: Office of the Carinthian Provincial Government - Office of the Ethnic Groups (Ed.): Carinthia Documentation . Special volume 1. Verlag Land Kärnten, Klagenfurt 2006, ISBN 3-901258-08-6 ( PDF ).
    • Martin Pandel (Hrsg.): Conflict with place-name signs in Carinthia - crisis or opportunity? Braumüller, Vienna 2004, ISBN 3-7003-1479-5 .
    • Vida Obid, Mirko Messner, Andrej Leben: Haider's parade ground. Carinthia's Slovenes in the German national community. Promedia, Vienna 2002, ISBN 3-85371-174-X .
    • Gero Fischer (Ed.): “This republic could recover from the Carinthian essence”: To the far right of Europe: Jörg Haider's “Renewal Policy”. Drava, Klagenfurt 1990, ISBN 3-85435-119-4 .
    • Peter Gstettner : Compulsively German? About false defensive struggle and wrong home service: a peace education manual for intercultural practice in the “border region”. Drava, Klagenfurt 1988, ISBN 3-85435-104-6 .
    • Hanns Haas, Karl Stuhlpfarrer: Austria and its Slovenes. Löcker & Wögenstein, Vienna 1977, ISBN 3-85392-014-4 .
    • Stefan Karner: The efforts to solve the Carinthian place-name sign question 2006, in: Österr. Jb. F. Politics 2006. Vienna 2007, pp. 359–374.
    • Josef Feldner, Marjan Sturm: Rethinking Carinthia. Two opponents in dialogue . Drava Verlag and Verlag Johannes Heyn, Klagenfurt / Celovec 2007. ISBN 978-3-85435-525-0 .
    • Gerhard Hafner, Martin Pandel (ed.): Ethnic group issues - cooperation instead of confrontation. Vprašanja manjšin - Kooperacija namesto konfrontacije. Klagenfurt / Celovec-Ljubljana / Laibach-Vienna / Dunaj, Mohorjeva / Hermagoras 2011. ISBN 978-3-7086-0605-7 .
    • Josef Feldner, Stefan Karner, Bernard Sadovnik / Heinz Stritzl / Marjan Sturm: The street sign dispute. Documentation of a border conflict . Carinthian Consensus Group , Klagenfurt 2011, ISBN 978-3-85435-665-3 .

    media

    • Thomas Korschil and Eva Simmler: Article 7 Our Right! - Pravica Naša! člen 7. 2005 ( website of the film )

    Web links

    General information

    To the local sign tower from 1972

    Positions in the sign dispute

    Survey

    Sound sources

    Individual evidence

    1. ↑ 1971 census, 2001 census
    2. ↑ Hans Steinacher: Victory in German Night. A book from the Carinthian freedom struggle . Wiener Verlag, Vienna 1943
    3. ^ A b Heinz Dieter Pohl: The ethnic-linguistic requirements of the referendum. Lecture at The Carinthian referendum 1920 and historical research. Achievements, deficits, prospects. International scientific conference, 6./7. October 2000. Print version
    4. ^ Heinz Kloss: Basic questions of ethnopolitics in the 20th century. The language communities between law and violence. Ethnos. Series of publications by the Research Center for Nationality and Language Issues Vol. 7. Wilhelm Braunmüller Vienna / Stuttgart and Verlag Wissenschaftliches Archiv, Bad Godesberg 1969, p. 65.
    5. ↑ a b c d e Movement in the place-name sign question . Chronology box - The Bleiberg / Pliberk town signs . In: Salzburger Nachrichten . July 14, 2010, Domestic Policy , p. 2 ( article archive ).
    6. ↑ Press release of the VfGH (PDF)
    7. ^ Report by ORF. August 25, 2006.
    8. ↑ Report of the ORF on the reaction of the Federal Chancellery. August 25, 2006.
    9. ↑ ORF report on the reactions of the other participants. August 25, 2006.
    10. ^ Report by the courier on the preliminary inquiries against Haider ( Memento of March 3, 2007 in the Internet Archive )
    11. ↑ Report in the Falter: How the Ministry of Justice stifled the investigation against Carinthian politicians ( Memento from January 13, 2010 in the Internet Archive )
    12. ^ Report by the courier on the recent re-assembly of the place-name signs in Bleiburg and Ebersdorf
    13. ↑ Gusenbauer: Solution “now or not at all”. In: Der Standard , June 14, 2007.
    14. ↑ Quotation of the surprise local sign in Carinthia . Box. In: Salzburger Nachrichten . July 14, 2010, title page , p. 1 .
    15. ↑ Carinthian place-name sign problem solved. In: Der Standard , April 1, 2011.
    16. ↑ Place-name signs: Effects on Burgenland? In: ORF Burgenland , April 4, 2011, accessed on April 4, 2011.
    17. ↑ Place-name signs: "Move away from percentage questions". In: Die Presse , April 19, 2011, accessed April 27, 2011.
    18. ↑ a b Memorandum concern bilingual "topographical inscriptions", the official language and measures for cooperation with the Slovene-speaking ethnic group (PDF) Carinthian regional government. Retrieved July 27, 2011.
    19. ↑ a b Information on the local sign solution . Carinthian provincial government. Retrieved July 27, 2011.
    20. ↑ Carinthian referendum without legal basis. In: Die Presse , May 8, 2011.
    21. ↑ knowledge G 213/01, V62 / 012, among others (PDF) of the Constitutional Court on 13 December 2001, available on the Legal Information System of the Republic of Austria (RIS).
    22. ↑ knowledge B 2075/99 (PDF) of the Constitutional Court on 13 December 2001, available on the Legal Information System of the Republic of Austria (RIS).