CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 24 mars 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5FFF0A75 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:7pt } .s25D5DE94 { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:7pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 13 April 2026   FIRST SECTION Application no. 2079/26 Predrag VUJOVIĆ against Montenegro lodged on 13 December 2025 communicated on 24 March 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The application concerns an alleged lack of independence and impartiality of the Constitutional Court. On 23 September 2013 the applicant filed a compensation claim against his former employer. On 3 December 2019 the Court of First Instance dismissed the applicant’s claim in its entirety. On 5 June 2022 the High Court quashed the first-instance judgment and ruled partly in favour of the applicant. On 26 September 2022 the applicant filed a constitutional appeal. On 12 September 2023 the then President of the Constitutional Court informed the applicant that a Constitutional Court judge X would be recused from all the cases in which the applicant was a party, following the applicant’s requests to that effect of 15 March and 8 August 2023. On 29 May 2025 the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant’s constitutional appeal of 26 September 2022, judge X being the President of a-three-judge Chamber. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that his right to an independent and impartial court was breached thereby.       QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1. Was the Constitutional Court independent and impartial, as required by Article   6 §   1 of the Convention, in particular in view of judge X’s involvement in ruling on the applicant’s case (see Sacilor-Lormines v.   France , no. 65411/01, § 60, ECHR 2006-XIII; see, also, Micallef v. Malta [GC], no. 17056/06, §§ 93 and 96-99, ECHR 2009, and Mežnarić v.   Croatia , no. 71615/01, § 27, 15 July 2005)?   2. The parties are also invited to inform the Court if the proceedings before the Constitutional Court can be re-opened and, if so, in what situations and on what legal grounds.