CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 13 octobre 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 } .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 } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s76CF415B { page-break-before:always; clear:both } .s23860FF7 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center } .s75A32C27 { border-collapse:collapse } .s3695F815 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top; background-color:#dfdfdf } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .sEECE831 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#474747 } .sE8934522 { border:0.75pt solid #949494; padding:1.02pt 5.03pt; vertical-align:top } .s2EB42ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:10pt } Published on 2 November 2022   SECOND SECTION Application no. 7792/17 Ljubiša POPOVIĆ and Others against Serbia and 2 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 13 October 2022 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applications concern the allegedly inconsistent case-law of the domestic courts. The applicants brought civil proceedings against their employer seeking compensation for work organised in shifts. The Požarevac Court of First Instance dismissed their claims. Those judgments were upheld by the Kragujevac Court of Appeal. The Constitutional Court rejected the applicants’ constitutional appeals. The applicants complain under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention about the conflicting case-law on the matter: they submit a number of decisions showing that some courts allowed their colleagues’ identical claims. 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 furnish the Constitutional Court with the examples of inconsistent case-law of the domestic courts 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)?     APPENDIX   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of birth Represented by 1. 7792/17 Popović and Others v. Serbia 18/01/2017 Ljubiša POPOVIĆ 1966 Mijomir PEJOVIĆ 1964 Draško ŽIVANOVIĆ 1974 Maja DOBRIĆ 2. 36588/17 Lazić and Others v. Serbia 12/05/2017 Zlatan LAZIĆ 1961 Prvoslav STOKIĆ 1959 Radiša STOKIĆ 1961 Mita GAVRILOV 1961 Maja DOBRIĆ 3. 84712/17 Mirkovski and Others v. Serbia 06/12/2017 Miodrag MIRKOVSKI 1968 Dejan BLAGOJEVIĆ 1968 Vladoje GRUJIĆ 1966 Slađan MARINKOVIĆ 1967 Zoran JEVREMOVIĆ 1955 Vera TOMOVIĆ (not lawyer)