Published on 15 July 2024
FOURTH SECTION
Application no. 23420/22
Rajko GRBIĆ against Serbia
and 6 other applications
(see list appended)
communicated on 24 June 2024
SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE
The applications concern the allegedly divergent case-law of various Serbian courts regarding the award of costs and expenses in proceedings under the Protection of the Right to a Trial Within a Reasonable Time Act (Zakon o zaštiti prava na suđenje u razumnom roku). In particular, the applicants allege that various courts in Serbia have ruled inconsistently by simultaneously rejecting their own claims and accepting other plaintiffs’ claims for costs and expenses in situations where they were all successful on the merits.
The applicants’ further constitutional appeals were also dismissed by the Constitutional Court.
Referring to Article 6 of the Convention, the applicants essentially complain that the rejection of their claims for costs and expenses, as well as the “flagrantly divergent case-law of the domestic courts” on this issue, created legal uncertainty and amounted to a denial of justice.
QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES
1. Was Article 6 § 1 of the Convention under its civil head applicable to the length-related proceedings in the present case (i.e. the proceedings under the Protection of the Right to a Trial Within a Reasonable Time Act)? In particular, did the proceedings in question concern the “determination of civil rights and obligations” within the meaning of that provision (see Omdahl v. Norway, no. 46371/18, § 47, 22 April 2021; Alaverdyan v. Armenia (dec.), no. 45523/04, § 35, 24 August 2010; and, mutatis mutandis, Pelli v. Italy (dec.), no. 19537/02, 13 November 2003)?
2. If so, 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’ allegation that the Serbian courts have applied flagrantly different case-law to identical situations, has the principle of legal certainty contained in this provision been complied with by the domestic judiciary (see, mutatis mutandis, Živić v. Serbia, no. 37204/08, § 47, 13 September 2011; Stoilkovska v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, no. 29784/07, § 47, 18 July 2013; and Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v. Romania [GC], no. 76943/11, § 116, 29 November 2016, with further references)?
APPENDIX
No.
Application no.
Case name
Lodged on
Applicant
Year of Birth
Place of Residence
Nationality
Represented by
1.
23420/22
Grbić v. Serbia
29/04/2022
Rajko GRBIĆ
1962
Bečej
Serbian
Nikola KOSANOVIĆ
2.
57957/22
Vujičić and Others v. Serbia
08/12/2022
Jasmina VUJIČIĆ
1966
Topola
Serbian
Ljiljana BOGIĆEVIĆ
1957
Topola
Serbian
Olga GLIŠIĆ
1969
Topola
Serbian
Vesna TOMIĆ ŽIVANOVIĆ
3.
239/23
Sremčević v. Serbia
08/12/2022
Fatima SREMČEVIĆ
1964
Žabare, Topola
Serbian
Vesna TOMIĆ ŽIVANOVIĆ
4.
243/23
Nešović v. Serbia
08/12/2022
Gordana NEŠOVIĆ
1960
Topola
Serbian
Vesna TOMIĆ ŽIVANOVIĆ
5.
247/23
Jordanov v. Serbia
08/12/2022
Danka JORDANOV
1967
Topola
Serbian
Vesna TOMIĆ ŽIVANOVIĆ
6.
919/23
Jović v. Serbia
21/12/2022
Miodrag JOVIĆ
1965
Trbušnica, Loznica
Serbian
Predrag FILIPOVIĆ
7.
10905/23
Mijailović v. Serbia
28/02/2023
Vladeta MIJAILOVIĆ
1961
Jadranska Lešnica, Loznica
Serbian
Stanoje FILIPOVIĆ