CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 6 mai 2022

.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 } .s523616E0 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .s39E5096F { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s54AB6003 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s87F05BA2 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sE7C30868 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } Published on 23 May 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 59268/16 Milenko MIŠIĆ and AD TERETNI TRANSPORT BOR against Serbia lodged on 13 June 2016 communicated on 6 May 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns the allegedly inconsistent case-law of the domestic courts. Following the termination of misdemeanour proceedings against them, the applicants lodged a request for reimbursement of their lawyer’s fees. The Kragujevac Misdemeanour Court rejected the request as being lodged by an unauthorised person. The Misdemeanour Appeals Court overturned that decision, ruled on the merits and dismissed the request. On 15   January 2016 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicants’ constitutional appeal. The applicants complain about the conflicting case-law on the matter: they submit a number of decisions to show that some courts reimbursed the lawyer’s fees in identical cases. The complaint falls to be examined under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     Have the applicants exhausted all effective domestic remedies, as required by Article 35 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, did they: (a) raise the complaint about the inconsistent case-law, at least in substance, before the Constitutional Court (see Vučković and Others v.   Serbia   (preliminary objection) [GC], nos.   17153/11   and 29 others, §§ 69-77, 25 March 2014)? (b) furnish the Constitutional Court with the case-law on which they rely before this Court (see Golubović and Others v. Serbia (dec.), nos. 10044/11 and 8 others, § 43, 17 September 2013)? 2.     Has there been a violation of the applicants’ right to a fair hearing, guaranteed by Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, on account of the inconsistent case-law of the domestic courts (see, for example, Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania [GC], no.   76943/11, § 116, 29   November 2016)?