Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Human Dignity in Serbia

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Book cover Handbook of Human Dignity in Europe

Abstract

In this chapter, the author identifies the place of human dignity in the laws of the Republic of Serbia by analysing its constitutional and legislative guarantees as well as appropriate judicial practice. The Constitution from 2006 gives human dignity a distinguished status in the Serbian legal system: it is recognized as the purpose of protecting human and minority rights as well as being an important legal principle and human right. As a human right, it is determined to be untouchable (unantastbar) and directly linked to the guarantee of freedom of personal development. The Constitution envisages other important areas of protection of human dignity being further developed in different sets of laws. In this analysis, the author identifies a general framework of what human dignity means in the legal system and points out the advantages and the problems of some directions of its interpretation. Additionally, some difficulties arising from the vagueness of the concept are emphasized. Furthermore, important decisions of the Constitutional Court are presented, their theoretical underpinnings and some underlying questions delineated, and the use of dignity protection in the practice of other courts are classified and discussed.

Submitted on 31st October 2014.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Indeed, the legal system of Serbia is also familiar with many other concepts which contain the word ‘dignity’ (such as ‘dignity of the court’, ‘dignity of the Republic of Serbia’, ‘dignity of the act of marriage’, etc.) but which are irrelevant for the purpose of this research.

  2. 2.

    For more on these standpoints, see Franeta (2011a, b).

  3. 3.

    Some laws command only generally the respect for human dignity without further clear, explicit and direct specifications of the concept [e.g. Law on Police (“Službeni glasnik RS”, br. 101/05, 63/09 –US, 92/11, Art. 13), Public Administration Code (Art. 2)].

  4. 4.

    For more on incompatibility of human dignity protection and stigmatising punishments, see Nussbaum (2006).

  5. 5.

    Serbia’s judiciary has been undergoing reform for the last decade, which has in itself created serious difficulties undermining its integrity.

  6. 6.

    A similar standpoint was confirmed in a decision of the Appellate Court in Novi Sad (AC NS 2-352/12 on 6 June 2012), according to which the person who committed serious acts of domestic violence, and therefore offended the dignity and physical and psychological integrity of a family member, was required to move out of the family house. Other decisions of the sort typically refer only to the protection of physical integrity, psychical health and tranquillity.

  7. 7.

    For instance, see SC, Rev. 2254/2007, on 5 September 2007; SC Rev. 2357/2005 on 15 December 2005; SC Rev. 504/2003 on 17 September 2003; SC Gž 10/97 on 12 February 1997; SC Rev 113/2003 on 6 March 2003; ACBG 3903/2013(2) on 18 June 2013; ACBG Gž 323/2013(1) on 6 March 2013; ACNS, Gž 1042/2011 on 24 March 2011; ACNS Gž 2476/2011(1) on 7 March 2012; ACNS Gž 404/12 on 24 May 2012; ACNS Gž1179/11 on 31 March 2011; ACBG Gž 8075/12 on 6 February 2012; ACBG Gž 5/13 on 25 January 2013; ACBG Gž 4048/11 on 20 July 2011; ACBG 13597/10 on 5 July 2011; ACBG Gž 3041/11 on 8 June 2011; ACBG Gž 757/11 on 3 March 2011; ACBG Gž 13743/10 on 15 September 2010; ACK Gž 1351/11 on 21 October 2011; ACK Gž 3217/12 on 18 October 2012; ACNS Gž 1098/13 on 27 November 2013.

  8. 8.

    For instance, see SC Rev 113/2003 on 6 March 2003 and ACNS Gž 404/12 on 24 May 2012.

  9. 9.

    ACBG Gž 994/12 on 29 March 2012; ACBG Gž 715/13 on 6 March 2014.

    A relatively recent case of ACNS (AC NS, Gž 4564/10) is worth mentioning because it does not fit into this categorisation. The decision addresses Article 23 of the Constitution and states that the damaged persons’ right to dignity was violated by false information that a close relative had died that was carelessly provided by the medical institution.

  10. 10.

    ACNS, Gž 1042/2011 on 24 March 2011; same in: ACNS Gž 3271/13 on 27 November 2013 and ACNS Gž 1098/13 on 27 November 2013.

  11. 11.

    ACNS Gž 404/12 on 24 May 2012.

  12. 12.

    ACBG Gž 994/12 on 29 March 2012.

  13. 13.

    ACNS Gž 3536/13 on 28 November 2013; some other decisions on the offence of the dignity and morale of the similar type (Article 202 LCT): ACNS Gž 436/11 on 18 May 2011 and ACNS 7507/10 on 20 April 2011.

  14. 14.

    ACK Gž 1351/11 on 21 October 2011.

  15. 15.

    SC 1421/97 on 2 April 1997; SC Rev 2 687/12 on 27 December 2012; SC Rev.229/2004/1 on 21 April 2004; ACNS Gž 3144/12 on 14 November 2012.

  16. 16.

    SC Rev. 229/2004/1 on 21 April 2004.

  17. 17.

    The exception being the decision of ACNS Gž 3144/12 on 14 November 2012 on discrimination at work based on the different sexual orientation, addressing the Article 23 of the Constitution and Article 12 of the PHWA.

  18. 18.

    Some decisions of the type: ACNS Gž 1. 239/13 on 13 March 2013; ACNS Gž 1104/13; ACNS Gž 1285/14 on 30 May 2014; ACNS Gž 1. 860/14 on 14 April 2014.

  19. 19.

    AdC I-1 Uo. 58/2012 on 2 August 2012.

  20. 20.

    ACNS Rev. 2018/10 on 13 April 2011; ACNS Gž 83/11 on 18 January 2011; ACNS Gž 1179/11 on 31 March 2011.

  21. 21.

    SC Gž 82/2004(2) on 8 September 2004 and SC Gž 30/05 on 23 February 2005.

  22. 22.

    ACNS Gž 631/13 on 23 May 2013.

  23. 23.

    Some examples being: ACBG Kž1 3607/11 on 18 October 2011and ACBG Kž2 1877/10 on 3 June 2010—criminal offence of insult as the violation of the dignity.

  24. 24.

    District Court in Jagodina K 189/2005 on 17 May 2006.

  25. 25.

    ACBG Kž1 Po2 6/13 on 14 May 2014 (the case has still not reached its final decision).

  26. 26.

    ACBG Kž 2 Po1 9/11 on 11 January 2012 and ACBG Kž3 Po2 1/2012 on 26 October 2012.

  27. 27.

    ACBG Kž1 Po2 7/12 on 29 March 2013.

  28. 28.

    ACBG Kž3 Po2 1/2012 on 26 October 2012.

  29. 29.

    Some decisions: SCKž I RZ 3/08 on 8 April 2009; District Court in Belgrade K.V. 5/2005 on 12 June 2008.

  30. 30.

    ACBG Kž1 Po2 6/11 on 3 October 2011 and ACBG Kž 1 Po2 7/12 on 29 March 2013.

References

  • Dürig G (1956) Der Grundrechtssatz von der Menschenwürde. Archiv des öffentlichen Rechts 8:117–157

    Google Scholar 

  • Franeta D (2011a) Ljudsko dostojanstvo između pravnodogmatičkih i filozofskih zahteva. Smisao, pretpostavke i implikacije Dirigovog shvatanja ljudskog dostojanstva. (Human dignity between legal-dogmatic and philosophical demands. Meaning, presuppositions and implications of Dürig’s understanding of human dignity). Filozofska istraživanja 31(4):825–842

    Google Scholar 

  • Franeta D (2011b) Jedna novija debata o ljudskom dostojanstvu i problem tragičnog i apsurdnog u pravu [A recent debate on human dignity and the problem of tragic and absurd in law]. Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu 2:193–211

    Google Scholar 

  • Herdegen M (2010) Kommentierung zu Art. 1 GG. In:Maunz T, Dürig G u.a. (Hgg.) Grundgesetz, Kommentar. C. H. Beck, Loseblattsammlung, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Jyrkkiö T (2011) Other inhumane acts’ as crimes against humanity. Helsinki Law Review. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1871883

  • Lilić S (2007) Da li je ustavna žalba efikasni pravni lek za suđenje u razumnom roku? (Is constitutional appeal an efficient legal recourse for trial within a reasonable time?). Anali Pravnog fakulteta u Beogradu 2:67–85

    Google Scholar 

  • Maunz-Dürig (1958) Grundgesetz: Kommentierung der Artikel 1 und 2 Grundgesetz von Günter Dürig. Verlag C. H. Beck, Loseblattsammlung, München

    Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum M (2006) Hiding from humanity. Disgust, shame and the law. Službeni glasnik, Beograd

    Google Scholar 

  • Tiedemann P (2006) Was ist Menschenwürde? WBG, Darmstadt

    Google Scholar 

Legislative Acts and Case Law

Download references

Acknowledgements

For an invaluable support during this research I would like to express my gratitude to Dr. Miodrag A. Jovanović of the Faculty of Law at the University of Belgrade.

I would also like to thank the court management of the Appellate Court in Novi Sad for the opportunity to investigate its court practice and consequently carry out a very important part of this research.

I am also grateful to the Basic Court in Niš and the Appellate Court in Niš for the decisions they have promptly provided.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law and Business Studies dr Lazar Vrkatić, University Union, Novi Sad, 21000, Serbia

    Duška Franeta

Authors
  1. Duška Franeta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Duška Franeta .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Law, University of Lucerne, Lucerne, Switzerland

    Paolo Becchi

  2. Faculty of Law, University of Lucerne, Lucerne, Switzerland

    Klaus Mathis

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG

About this entry

Cite this entry

Franeta, D. (2018). Human Dignity in Serbia. In: Becchi, P., Mathis, K. (eds) Handbook of Human Dignity in Europe. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27830-8_36-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-27830-8_36-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-27830-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-27830-8

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Law and CriminologyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation