CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 20 mai 2021

.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 } .s54AB6003 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 7 June 2021   SECOND SECTION Application no. 34033/15 Dejan JEVTIĆ against Serbia lodged on 22 June 2015 communicated on 20 May 2021 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant is an aircraft maintenance technician in “JAT AIRWAYS”. His civil claim concerning certain employment-related benefits was allowed in part and dismissed as unfounded in the remaining part by the domestic courts. The final domestic decision was rendered by the Constitutional Court on 26 May 2015. Relying on two final domestic decisions by which identical claims submitted by his colleagues were fully accepted, the applicant complains under Articles 13 and 14 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the Convention about the inconsistent case-law of the domestic courts and the lack of effective legal remedy in that respect. The applicant’s complaint about the inconsistent case-law falls to be examined under Articles 6   and 13 of the Convention only. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     In the light of the applicant’s allegation that the domestic courts applied different case-law to identical salary-related claims, 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? In particular, have the domestic courts complied with the principle of legal certainty in view of the Court’s case-law on this matter (see, mutatis mutandis , Mirković and Others v. Serbia , nos. 27471/15 and 12 others, §§   134-142, 26 June 2018; Stanković and Trajković v. Serbia , nos. 37194/08 and 37260/08, §§ 40-44, 22 December 2015; and Vinčić and Others v. Serbia , nos. 44698/06 and 30 others, § 56, 1 December 2009)? 2.   Did the applicant have at his disposal an effective domestic remedy for his Convention complaints, as required by Article   13 of the Convention?