In the case Paun Jovanović v. Serbia, the applicant, a practicing lawyer and an Ijekavian speaker of the Serbian language of Montenegrin origins, complained to the European Court of Human Rights that he had suffered discrimination under Article 14 ECHR and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention. Specifically, during a hearing in a criminal case, he was asking questions to a witness in Ijekavian when the judge invited him to “use the official language” of the court. However, the judge had not issued the same warning to his colleague acting on behalf of the victim in the same proceeding, who was using the Ekavian variant of the Serbian language.

 

After deciding to examine the case on the basis of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention, the Court first notes the disagreement between the Serbian Government and the applicant on the facts at issue. From the Government’s perspective, the national court did not prevent the applicant from using Ijekavian, but merely asked him to rephrase a single question to ensure that the witness could understand it. In this regard, the Strasbourg judges note that there is no evidence in the transcript of the impugned hearing to support the government’s view. Rather, the transcript states that the applicant had been “warned to ask questions in the court’s official language”, the clear implication being that Ijekavian was not accepted as such. No warning had been addressed to the Ekavian-speaking lawyer representing the victim. The Court thus finds a difference in treatment between the two lawyers. This was despite the fact that the lawyers had to be considered persons in an analogous situation, since they were both acting on behalf of their clients during the same criminal proceedings. It recalls in parallel that although only “language” has specifically been mentioned as a ground of distinction in Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention, an officially recognized variant thereof is covered by the same “status”.

Next, the Court examines whether the difference in treatment was supported by reasonable justification. It first clarifies that it is legitimate for a State Party to the Convention to regulate matters concerning the official use of languages in court proceedings and that the same applies to variants of the same language. It then notes that both the Government and Matica srpska, the oldest linguistic authority in Serbia, have recognized that the Serbian language “has two equivalent variants”, that is Ekavian and Ijekavian, and that both can be used officially. In light of this, the Court finds that the difference in treatment between the two lawyers was not supported by reasonable justification.

 

In conclusion, the Court found that the treatment suffered by the applicant was discriminatory in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention.

 

(Comment by Chiara Chisari)