LEXI - AI Legal Assistant
Sorry, there was an error communicating with our API.
Try refreshing the page, and if the error persists, please try again in a few minutes.
ŠABANOVIĆ v. SERBIA and 24 other applications
Doc ref: 39819/16 • ECHR ID: 001-225591
Document date: May 31, 2023
- Inbound citations: 0
- •
- Cited paragraphs: 0
- •
- Outbound citations: 0
ŠABANOVIĆ v. SERBIA and 24 other applications
Doc ref: 39819/16 • ECHR ID: 001-225591
Document date: May 31, 2023
Cited paragraphs only
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
BoriÄić 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
1965Sombor
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
1972Vršac
Serbian
Dragan
TODOROVIĆ
Article 6 of the Convention
Article 13 of the Convention
Article 1 of Protocol No. 1
12.
34317/17
ÄorÄ‘ević v. Serbia
13/04/2017
Milan ÄORÄEVIĆ 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 BEKEÅ 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
1965PanÄevo
Serbian
Branislav
MANIĆ
Articles 6 and 14 of the Convention
25.
12588/18
ÄuriÄić v. Serbia
28/02/2018
Miladin ÄURIÄŒIĆ 1969 Krupanj Serbian
Julijana STEPANIĆ PAVLOVIĆ
Article 5 of the Convention
© European Union,
https://eur-lex.europa.eu, 1998 - 2025
