206 Mrekajová 2.2 Language or Other Integration Requirements In general, differentiation based on language in the specific context of nationality attribution does not amount to discrimination.6 UNHCR also agrees that language is fundamental to integration and cohesion of communities.7 But, even though the language and other integration requirements may be considered as legitimate for the purposes of naturalization, they ‘should exclusively be used and regarded as [elements] of integrating non-nationals and should not be used as a discriminatory means for a State to select its nationals’.8 The State should therefore not ‘require more than an adequate knowledge of one of its official languages’.9 The word adequate deserves some attention here. In practice, it might be very difficult to establish the level of knowledge of grammar and vocabulary necessary to pass the test. According to linguists, the knowledge of 800 words of language is sufficient to conduct a simple conversation10 (A2 standard). This should be the standard for naturalization tests. Other integration requirements, usually taking the form of a test, interview or other assessment, also seem legitimate. ‘It is in principle desirable that a person who wants to enjoy benefits of citizenship also show their willingness to integrate by acquiring certain knowledge of the official language of the State and of the principles of State structure.’11 But ‘it goes (…) too far to include questions which citizens of many European countries, perhaps also of [the State in question], might find difficult to answer’.12 Moreover, even if States comply with the above standards, the language and other knowledge tests might still be problematic to pass for certain categories of applicants due to their age or physical or mental conditions. States should therefore introduce appropriate adjustments to the procedure or consider a 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 European Convention on Nationality and its Explanatory Report lists only ‘sex, religion, race, color or national or ethnic origin’ (Art. 5), as prohibited discriminatory grounds, clarified further in the Explanatory Report as a choice based on the fact, that the differentiation on the other grounds e.g. language or property in the specific context of nationality attribution is not discriminatory. See Explanatory report to the European Convention on Nationality, ETS 166, para 40. UNHCR (n 5) para 11. Council of Europe, Committee of Experts on Nationality, Report on Conditions for the Acquisition and Loss of Nationality (Strasbourg: 14 January 2003), para 36. Explanatory report to the European Convention on Nationality, ETS 166, para 52. Vadim Poleshchuk, Advice not welcomed: Recommendations of the OSCE High Commissioner to Estonia and Latvia and the Response (LIT Verlag 2001) 56. Ibid 60. Ibid 60. tilburg law review 19 (2014) 203-211