CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 mars 2020

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Communicated on 6 March 2020 Published on 23 March 2020   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 41394/15 Paun JOVANOVIĆ against Serbia lodged on 4 August 2015 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application primarily concerns the official use of two standard variants of the Serbian language, Ekavian and Ijekavian , in criminal proceedings. The applicant was a practicing lawyer and a speaker of the latter and alleges to have been denied the opportunity to use it by an investigating judge when acting on behalf of his client, i.e. the defendant, in the course of the proceedings at issue. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Has the applicant, as a practicing lawyer and an Ijekavian speaker of the Serbian language, suffered discrimination in terms of his “private life” and/or a “right set forth by law” compared to practicing lawyers who were Ekavian speakers of the same language, contrary to Article 14 of the Convention, read in conjunction with Article 8 thereof, or in breach of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12?   2.     Having regard to the reasons given by the Constitutional Court for its decision of 10 February 2015 (Už-1853/2013), did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention?