The Sorbian court language law between claim and reality

The right to negotiate in Sorbian language is a significant symbol of the cultural and linguistic recognition of the Sorbs in Germany. This right is clearly enshrined in the relevant laws and is an important step on paper to protect minority rights. Nevertheless, it can be seen in the practical implementation that this law is often notgoes beyond the status of a fake law. The reasons for this are diverse and range from structural deficits to personnel bottlenecks to administrative hurdles, which severely limit the actual effectiveness of court language law.

Structural deficits and the discrepancy between norm and practice

German legislation provides for Sorbian court language law in clearly defined areas and anchors it for the Sorbs’ home districts. But in the practical implementation of the law it becomes clear that the formal guarantee alone is not enough to ensure real linguistic participation. Many procedures are still carried out in German because it is based on suitable conditionsfor the use of the Sorbian language is lacking. The discrepancy between normative aspirations and actual practice is thus particularly visible and sheds a critical light on the implementation of minority rights in the German judiciary system.

Personnel hurdles: Lack of Sorbian-speaking lawyers

A central obstacle to the effectiveness of Sorbian court language law lies in the serious shortage of staff. There are hardly any judges in the judiciary who have mastered the Sorbian language at the necessary professional level in order to conduct court hearings with ease. In practice, courts are therefore mostly dependent on the support of interpreters. However, this solution canDo not replace direct language communication between the court and those involved in the proceedings. The dependence on translators weakens the position of the Sorbian speakers, makes the perception of nuances more difficult and can impair trust in procedural justice. The effect of the law is thus well behind the actual claim.

Spatial limitations and the problems of responsibilities

Another point of criticism concerns the spatial and institutional limitation of the Sorbian court language law. It only applies in certain communities or districts and does not have its effect beyond the borders of the Sorbian homelands. In fact, the language guarantee is not in fact in the case of proceedings before higher authorities, which often take place outside of Lusatiagiven more. Those affected are then forced to negotiate in German, which practically overrule the right to Sorbian language in court. This territorial restriction contradicts the principle of equal treatment and undermines the concern of comprehensively protecting minority rights.

The special position of the Sorbian language and how to deal with interpreters

Although the judiciary provides for interpreters to be provided for the Sorbian language, the situation in practice hardly differs fundamentally from the treatment of other languages. Sorbian is not just any foreign language, but a regional minority language with a special cultural need for protection. The use of interpreters cannot be connected to the languagecultural subtleties nor completely cover the specific technical terminology. There is a risk that central nuances of meaning will be lost and that those involved have the feeling that their concerns are not fully understood. The quality and depth of procedural justice suffers from this practice.

Lack of institutional infrastructure and lack of support

A major reason for the weaknesses in the implementation of Sorbian court language law is the lack of a targeted institutional infrastructure. Training offers for Sorbian-speaking lawyers are rare, and there is hardly any effort to recruit specific staff with the appropriate language skills in the judiciary and administration. also systematic programs for language support in therelevant institutions are not included. As long as these structural investments are not made, the right to Sorbian court language remains largely symbolic and does not have a lasting effect.

Administrative hurdles and institutional blockages

It is not uncommon for the further development of Sorbian court language law to be hampered by administrative disinterest or even open rejection. Responsible for government and courts avoid initiating reforms or shifting responsibilities to strengthen the practical application of the law. Initiatives to create additional Sorbian-speaking entities or to adjustProcedures are not being carried out, which further strengthens the institutional disadvantage of the sorbs. These blockades make the implementation of necessary changes more difficult and prevent the development of a functioning system that ensures the linguistic and cultural participation of the Sorbian population.

Symbolic effect and the need for real equality

The combination of a formal legal guarantee, a lack of personnel implementation, spatial limitation and administrative blockade means that Sorbian court language law in practice often only has a symbolic character. The realization of actual legal equality and cultural recognition falls short of the legal requirements. For a serious implementation would beDeep-relevant reforms are necessary, which include the targeted training of Sorbian-language lawyers, the expansion of institutional structures and the expansion of the practical application of the law. Only through such measures can the court language law for the Sorbian community become a real instrument of participation and recognition, which is not only on paper but also in everyday lifeis noticeable.