Dobrivoj KASAPOVIĆ against Serbia
On September 8, 2026, the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) issued a decision in the case, and on October 1 of the same year Kasapović against Serbia, number 14157/23.
It's a decisionbroughtthree-member Board.
The case refers to the applicant's right to a reasoned court decision according to the provisions of Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention and, in that context, the right to access the court in a civil proceeding concerning employment rights. The court rejected the petition of the applicant as clearly unfounded. |
THE CIRCUMSTANCES CASES
The applicant (hereinafter: the applicant), Mr. Dobrivoj Kasapović, performed the duties of director of the legal sector in the company Fabrika korljajujeh i cardan FKL a.d. from Temerin.
By the judgment of the Basic Court in Novi Sad P1. 1823/2013 of March 2, 2017, the applicant's claims against the employer were partially adopted. The Basic Court in Novi Sad accepted his requests, which related to the payment of the difference between the paid and the corresponding salary, then the payment of the difference between the paid and the corresponding additional salary, as well as an increase in the salary due to overtime work in a certain period, with statutory default interest, while it rejected his request for an increase in the salary based on shift work.
Both the applicant and the defendant filed appeals against the first-instance verdict.
The Court of Appeal in Novi Sad, by the judgment Gž1. 1979/17 of December 15, 2017, partially modified the first-instance judgment by rejecting the applicant's claim for payment of increased wages for overtime work.
The applicant then filed a review with the Supreme (Cassation) Court against the judgment of the Appellate Court in Novi Sad. He challenged the parts of the judgment that refer to the difference between paid and related wages and the difference between paid and related additional wages, then the part of the judgment that refers to the increase in wages due to overtime work and the part of the judgment that refers to the unpaid increase in wages based on shift work.
On September 16, 2020, the Supreme (Cassation) Court issued a verdictRev2. 3113/2018 with which he refused as an unfounded audit of the applicant. In the explanation of the verdict, the Supreme (Cassation) Court ruled exclusively on the audit allegation of the applicant that related to overtime work, while the audit allegation related to the difference between the paid and the corresponding salary, the difference between the paid and the corresponding additional salary, as well as the unpaid salary increase based on shift work, are not mentioned at all.
Against the verdict of the Supreme Court of Cassation, the applicant filed a constitutional appeal with the Constitutional Court. In the constitutional appeal, he emphasized the violation of the right to a fair trial, the right to equal protection of rights, the right to fair compensation for work and the right to limited working hours, guaranteed by the provisions of Article 32, paragraph 1, Article 36, paragraph 1, and Article 60, paragraph. 1 and 4 of the Constitution.
On September 29, 2022, the Constitutional Court dismissed the applicant's constitutional appeal by decision Už-12828/2020, assessing that his allegations cannot be accepted as constitutional reasons to argue for claims of violation of the right to a fair trial, but that the Constitutional Court, in essence, is required to once again assess the legality of the challenged verdict as an instance court. The Constitutional Court did not particularly appreciate the allegations of the violation of the right from Article 60, paragraph 1 of the Constitution, because it assessed that the applicant essentially bases the violation of that right on the violation of the right to a fair trial. Regarding the violation of the right from Article 36, paragraph 1 of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court stated that the applicant did not submit evidence that the Supreme (Cassation) Court, in the same factual and legal situation, renders different (different) verdicts.
COMPLAINTS OF THE APPLICANT AND THE PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT
The applicant submitted the petition to the Court on March 14, 2023.
In the petition, he pointed out that the Supreme (Cassation) Court decided only on one of his claims, consciously overlooking and neglecting the others, which violated his right to access the court guaranteed by Article 6, Paragraph 1 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter: the Convention).
THE DECISION THE COURT
The court, first of all, pointed out that the higher court is not obliged to separately explain the decision by which it rejects the review due to the lack of prospects for success, if it only applies the legal provisions.
In this sense, the Court stated thatThe Supreme (Cassation) Court summarily decided on the admissibility of the applicant's request for review, indicating that it will consider only those complaints that refer to part of the judgment of the appellate court, referring to the relevant legal provisions. The court accepted that the Supreme (Cassation) Court determined the scope of its review clearly enough and rejected the applicant's claim that the court did not decide on objections related to shift work.
Bearing in mind that the applicant did not refer to the legal provisions that could substantiate the admissibility of the review with regard to the remaining issues, the Court assessed that the rejection of his request related to compensation based on shift work was foreseeable and that he had no realistic prospects of success in this regard, and that the reasoning of the Supreme (Cassation) Court was sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention.
Following the above, the Court rejected the petition of the applicantas clearly unfounded, in accordance with Article 35, paragraph 3 of the Convention.