Conference Paper: The EU language policy and interpreting/translation practices: the case of Croatia's application for EU membership^ JIM HLAVAC MONASH UNIVERSITY The ELJ is considered by most to have exemplary language and interpreting/ translating (1/T) policies: EU parliamentarians may use their own language when speaking in parliament and the 20 official languages of all 25 member states have equal status in regard to l/T services. This paper traces official EU and Croatian policies in regard to language choice and examines some of the translation practices employed by both the EU and Croatia. So far, bi-directional translation practices have involved a language variety that is unmistakeably Croatian and one of the EU's 'working languages', usually English. But interpreting practices have not always followed the same pattern and EU-employed interpreters do not always interpret into Croatian. There is some evidence to suggest that the form and name of the language in EU'Croatia contacts may not always remain uniquely Croatian. If Croatian continues to be employed, this may be a consequence not only of principles applied by EU (or Croatian) bureaucrats. Rather, it may in some part be due to the absence of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Serbia- Montenegro as co-applicants for EU membership. Thus, amongst the rhetoric of respecting member states' language designations and most Croats' adherence to the term 'Croatian' as their native language it is the absence of Bosnian/Bosniak and Serbian (and possibly Montenegrin) as closely related codes which may co-determine the EU's l/T practices just as much as its official language policies. 1. EU language policies The European Union (EU) is a political institution that has 25 member states in Europe. Since its inception in 1957 (then as the European Economic Community and later as the European Community) it has pursued a policy of equal status for all official languages of its member states. Thus, Council Regulation No. 1 of 1958 states that: "Residents of member states have the right to communicate with [the EU] institutions in their own language" (European Commission 2004). Thus, the right of all EU member states to communication in their own language necessitates the availability of interpretation and/or translation services all official EU languages. This has consequences on the necessary provision of services for interpreting and translating (hereafter 'I/T') that the EU provides (see Section 2 below). The rationale that all speakers of official languages of member states should be able to communicate with EU institutions is based on logistics and ideology. As the EU has dealings with almost all parts of each member state's civil administration and apparatus (e.g. Agriculture, Internal Affairs, Justice) it is logistically easier for the EU to be the 'caretaker' of I/T services rather than this being left to various bodies in member states. The advantages of this are manifold for all stakeholders: member states are relieved of the obligation and cost of I/T; the EU is responsible for the quality and content of I/T services (i.e. member states cannot 'misinterpret' documents or verbal texts to their advantage or disadvantage); the EU is able to apply a uniform and egalitarian policy for I/T services for all member states, regardless of the size or prestige of their national languages. Ideologically as well, an 'even-handed' language policy is necessitated through the synonymous relationship of'language = national identity' in most European countries. The non-availability of I/T services for a member state's language may even be perceived as an affront to that state's national identity. VOLUME THREE, NUMBER TWO 53