Reference no.:
Official Gazette RS, No. 59/2008 and OdlUS XVII, 41 | 20.05.2008
The requirement that courts in civil proceedings should enable parties to use a language which they understand in written communications with the court does not follow from the right to use one's language and script within the meaning of Article 62 of the Constitution.
The provisions of the Bilateral Contract on Legal Aid, which regulate the principled duty of courts when sending court documents from one contracting state to another to enclose a translation of such court documents into the language of the requested state, are procedural provisions which do not contain human rights or fundamental freedoms.
In view of the fact that at the outset of proceedings the complainant did not object that the claim had not been served on him correctly, the standpoint of the Supreme Court according to which a signed acknowledgement of receipt creates the presumption that the complainant had voluntarily accepted the documents without a translation cannot be considered to be unreasonable.
From the viewpoint of Article 22 of the Constitution it could be disputable if the courts had adopted the standpoint that circumstances in which parties who had to provide for the translation of court documents into a language which they understand themselves could not entail an excusable delay.
Document in PDF:
Type of procedure:
constitutional complaint
Type of act:
individual act
Date of application:
Date of decision:
Type of decision adopted:
Outcome of proceedings:
non-acceptance of a constitutional complaint