CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 31 mai 2023

.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 } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .sC702907E { margin-top:12pt; margin-left:36.6pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-indent:-15.05pt; text-align:justify; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s6E03D265 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-indent:14.2pt; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s4ACA9207 { page-break-before:always; clear:both; mso-break-type:section-break } .s7BE5FA7D { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:center; font-size:14pt } .sEC176AAF { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:6pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .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 } .s57B74627 { height:61.1pt } .sA1D3DA2E { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } Published on 19 June 2023   FOURTH SECTION Application no. 39819/16 Safet ŠABANOVIĆ against Serbia and 24 other applications (see list appended) communicated on 1 June 2023 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASES The applications primarily concern the alleged divergent case-law of the various Serbian courts concerning the supplemented payment of police officers for overtime, night shifts and shifts on public holidays. In particular, the applicants allege that the various courts in Serbia, while dismissing their civil claims, concurrently and inconsistently ruled, between 2012 and 2016, both in favour of and against hundreds of the applicants’ fellow officers, notwithstanding the fact that their claims were based on the same or similar facts and concerned identical legal issues. The applicants’ further constitutional appeals, referring to the right to a fair trial, legal equality and a legal remedy and/or the right to just compensation for work, were dismissed or rejected by the Constitutional Court. Referring to various Articles of the Convention (see appended list), all applicants essentially complain that the rejection of their civil claims and the allegedly flagrant divergent case-law of the domestic courts in respect of the merits of their disputes have created legal uncertainty and amounted to a denial of justice. Certain applicants further complain about (i) the inconsistent jurisprudence of the Supreme and Constitutional Court and/or their own different Chambers, in particular concerning the availability of an appeal on points of law ( revizija ) in this type of disputes; (ii) a breach of their property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1, and/or (iii) a lack of an effective legal remedy, as guaranteed by Article 13 of the Convention. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES As regards all applicants 1.     Did the applicants have a fair hearing in the determination of their civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, in the light of the applicants’ allegations that the Serbian courts have applied different case-law to identical civil claims, has the principle of legal certainty contained in Article 6 of the Convention been complied with (see, mutatis mutandis , Nejdet Şahin and Perihan Şahin v. Turkey [GC], no.   13279/05, §§   49-58, 20 October 2011; Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania [GC], no. 76943/11, § 116, 29 November 2016; and Živić v.   Serbia , no.   37204/08, §   47,   13 September 2011, with further references)?   Noting the relevance of the “profound and long-standing differences” criterion (see, mutatis mutandis , Iordan Iordanov and Others v.   Bulgaria , no.   23530/02, § 48, 2 July 2009), the Government are further requested to clarify and document whether the domestic law provided for a mechanism capable of removing the alleged inconsistency, and whether the Serbian courts, including the appeals courts, the Supreme Court of Cassation and the Constitutional Court, have to date formally and/or effectively harmonised their approach to the relevant matters and, if so, since when exactly (see, mutatis mutandis , Svilengaćanin and Others v. Serbia , nos. 50104/10 and 9   others, §§ 81-82, 12 January 2021).   The parties are invited to comment on and document by case-law of the competent courts the availability and effectiveness in the applicants’ and other similar disputes of an extraordinary appeal on points of law, as provided by Article 395 of the Civil Procedure Act. Applications nos. 33538/17, 34426/17, 34431/17, 34438/17, 34842/17, 36009/17, 36018/17, 36026/17 and 51420/17 2.     Did the applicants have at their disposal an effective domestic remedy for their Convention complaints, as required by Article   13 of the Convention? Applications nos. 39819/16, 39827/16, 39850/16, 39902/16, 39905/16, 33538/17 and 53300/17 3.     Having regard to the applicants’ civil claims, did the applicants have a “possession” for the purposes of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1? In the affirmative, has there been a violation of this Article?   APPENDIX   No. Application no. Case name Lodged on Applicant Year of Birth Place of Residence Nationality Represented by Articles invoked 1. 39819/16 Šabanović v. Serbia 27/06/2016 Safet ŠABANOVIĆ 1964 Novi Pazar Serbian Nataša MIJALJEVIĆ Article 6 of the Convention Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 2. 39827/16 Jovanović v. Serbia 27/06/2016 Dejan JOVANOVIĆ 1983 Novi Pazar Serbian Nataša MIJALJEVIĆ Article 6 of the Convention Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 3. 39850/16 Biorac v. Serbia 27/06/2016 Jovica BIORAC 1976 Novi Pazar Serbian Nataša MIJALJEVIĆ Article 6 of the Convention Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 4. 39902/16 Boričić v. Serbia 27/06/2016 Dragan BORIČIĆ 1982 Novi Pazar Serbian   Nataša MIJALJEVIĆ Article 6 of the Convention Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 5. 39905/16 Jolović v. Serbia 27/06/2016 Srećko JOLOVIĆ 1962 Novi Pazar Serbian Nataša MIJALJEVIĆ Article 6 of the Convention Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 6. 60773/16 Tešić v. Serbia 03/06/2015 Zoran TEŠIĆ 1976 Majur Serbian Julijana STEPANIĆ PAVLOVIĆ Articles 4, 5 and 14 of the Convention 7. 17816/17 Majstorović v. Serbia 24/02/2017 Tijana MAJSTOROVIĆ 1986 Apatin Serbian Branislav MILOJIČIĆ Article 6 of the Convention 8. 17886/17 Morokvašić v. Serbia 27/02/2017 Radomir MOROKVAŠIĆ 1965 Sombor Serbian Branislav MILOJIČIĆ Article 6 of the Convention 9. 29477/17 Krstić v. Serbia 10/04/2017 Milan KRSTIĆ 1963 Krupanj Serbian Julijana STEPANIĆ PAVLOVIĆ Article 5 of the Convention 10. 31419/17 Pifar v. Serbia 13/04/2017 Zoran PIFAR 1979 Sombor Serbian Branislav MILOJIČIĆ Article 6 of the Convention 11. 33538/17   Draškić v. Serbia 22/04/2017 Miodrag DRAŠKIĆ 1972 Vršac Serbian Dragan TODOROVIĆ Article 6 of the Convention Article 13 of the Convention Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 12. 34317/17 Đorđević v. Serbia 13/04/2017 Milan ĐORĐEVIĆ 1970 Odžaci Serbian Branislav MILOJIČIĆ Article 6 of the Convention 13. 34426/17 Godar v. Serbia 05/05/2017 Dragan GODAR 1968 Subotica Serbian Miljko KARAKLAJIĆ Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention   14. 34431/17 Bekeš v. Serbia 05/05/2017 Ljubomir BEKEŠ 1966 Subotica Serbian Miljko KARAKLAJIĆ Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention   15. 34438/17 Dulić v. Serbia 05/05/2017 Nikola DULIĆ 1962 Subotica Serbian Miljko KARAKLAJIĆ Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention   16. 34842/17 Bašić v. Serbia 05/05/2017 Stipan BAŠIĆ 1963 Subotica Serbian Miljko KARAKLAJIĆ Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention   17. 36009/17 Šaulić v. Serbia 05/05/2017 Vojislav SAULIĆ 1986 Bajmok Serbian Miljko KARAKLAJIĆ Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention   18. 36018/17 Koldžić v. Serbia 05/05/2017 Dragan KOLDŽIĆ 1980 Subotica Serbian Miljko KARAKLAJIĆ Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention   19. 36026/17 Vujković v. Serbia 05/05/2017 Tomislav VUJKOVIĆ 1978 Subotica Serbian Miljko KARAKLAJIĆ Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention   20. 51420/17 Vesić v. Serbia 04/07/2017 Dragan VESIĆ 1976 Kragujevac Serbian Miljko KARAKLAJIĆ Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention   21. 53300/17 Popović v. Serbia 17/07/2017 Zvonko POPOVIĆ 1964 Novi Pazar Serbian Nataša MIJALJEVIĆ Article 6 of the Convention Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 22. 77143/17 Zuber v. Serbia 23/10/2017 Damir ZUBER 1969 Apatin Serbian Branislav MILOJIČIĆ Article 6 of the Convention 23. 71924/17 Zuber v. Serbia 22/09/2017 Saša ZUBER 1979 Prigrevica Serbian Branislav MILOJIČIĆ Article 6 of the Convention 24. 75858/17 Milosavljević v. Serbia 20/10/2017 Saša MILOSAVLJEVIĆ 1965 Pančevo Serbian Branislav MANIĆ Articles 6 and 14 of the Convention 25. 12588/18 Đuričić v. Serbia 28/02/2018 Miladin ĐURIČIĆ 1969 Krupanj Serbian Julijana STEPANIĆ PAVLOVIĆ Article 5 of the Convention