CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 28 août 2012

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sEB86A30B { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s5CB9E8AB { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 160 February 2013 Vučković and Others v. Serbia (referral) - 17153/11, 17157/11, 17160/11 et al. Judgment 28.8.2012 [Section II] Article 14 Discrimination Alleged discrimination in payments to military reservists on grounds of place of residence: case referred to the Grand Chamber   The applicants were reservists who had been drafted by the Yugoslav Army in connection with the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation’s intervention in Serbia. They remained in military service between March and June 1999 and were thus entitled to a per diem . However, following demobilisation the Government refused to honour their obligation to pay the per diem . Following protracted negotiations, the Government reached an agreement on 11   January 2008 with reservists residing in certain “underdeveloped” municipalities under the terms of which the reservists concerned were guaranteed payment in monthly instalments. The agreement did not extend to reservists such as the applicants who did not reside in those municipalities. In their applications to the European Court the applicants alleged that they had been discriminated against on grounds of residence. In a judgment of 28 August 2012, a Chamber of the Court held by six votes to one that there had been a violation of Article   14 of the Convention read in conjunction with Article   1 of Protocol No.   1. It noted that the applicants’ complaints concerned rights of a sufficiently pecuniary nature to fall within the ambit of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 and that the applicants had allegedly been discriminated against on the grounds of their registered residence. Article   14 was therefore applicable. The payments referred to in the agreement of 11   January 2008 were clearly per diems , not social benefits awarded to persons in need. The agreement provided that reservists residing in certain named municipalities would be guaranteed gradual payment of part of their entitlements. These municipalities had apparently been chosen because of their “underdeveloped status”, which implied that reservists resident in them were indigent. However, the reservists concerned had never not required to provide any proof of indigence. Conversely, the applicants and other reservists not resident in the municipalities were unable to benefit from the agreement, irrespective of their means. The arrangements put in place had thus been arbitrary and there had been no “objective and reasonable justification” for the difference in treatment. The Chamber further noted that more than 3,000 applications raising the same discrimination issue were currently pending before the Court and directed the Government to take all appropriate measures to secure non-discriminatory payment of the per diems to all those entitled, within six months from the date on which the Court’s judgment became final*. On 11 February 2013 the case was referred to the Grand Chamber at the Government’s request. * In view of the referral of the case to the Grand Chamber, the Chamber judgment will not become final (see Article   44 of the Convention).     © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes