CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 4 avril 2025

.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 } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s3DB046A9 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic; background-color:#ffffff } .s391E78BA { font-family:Arial; background-color:#ffffff } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic }   Published on 22 April 2025   THIRD SECTION Application no. 14157/23 Dobrivoj KASAPOVIĆ against Serbia lodged on 14 March 2023 communicated on 4 April 2025   SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE In 2013 the applicant initiated labour proceedings against his former employer seeking different employment benefits. The first-instance court partially granted his claims for payment of net earnings difference and payment for overtime work, but dismissed his claim for payment for work in shifts. The second-instance court upheld this judgment in part which concerned the applicant’s claims for payment of net-earnings difference and work in shifts, and reversed the first-instance judgement as concerns the claim for payment for overtime work. The applicant lodged an appeal on points of law with the Supreme Court of Cassation, challenging the second-instance decision to dismiss his claim for payment for overtime work, work in shifts, as well as the partially granted claim for payment of net earnings difference. In its decision of 16 September 2020, the Supreme Court of Cassation decided only on the applicant’s claim for payment for overtime work; it did not decide on his claims concerning payment for work in shifts and payment of net earnings difference, without stating any reasons in that regard. Following this decision, the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal claiming violation of his right to a fair trial and pointing out that the Supreme Court of Cassation failed to decide on all his claims. In its decision of 29 September 2022 (which was served on the applicant on 21 November 2022), the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional appeal as being of a fourth-instance nature. Relying on Article 6 of the Convention, the applicant complains about the lack of access to the Supreme Court of Cassation, and insufficient reasoning of that court’s decision.   QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     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: was the decision of the Supreme Court of Cassation sufficiently reasoned, as required under Article 6 §   1 of the Convention (see, among other authorities, Ramos Nunes de Carvalho   e   Sáv.   Portugal   [GC], nos.   55391/13   and 2 others, § 185, 6 November 2018; and NDI SOPOT v.   North Macedonia , no. 6035/17, § 115, 26 November 2024)? 2.     Has there been a violation of the applicant’s right of access to court, as a result of the failure of the Supreme Court of Cassation to decide on all of his claims (see Zubac v. Croatia   [GC], no. 40160/12, §§ 76-79, 5 April 2018; and, mutatis mutandis , Ponomarev v. Russia , no. 7672/03, § 24, 15 May 2008)?