Dejan JOVANOVIĆ v. Serbia and 6 other petitions

On March 31, 2026, the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) made, and on May 7 of the same year, published its decision in the caseJovanović et al. against Serbia, number 39827/16.

It's a decisionbrought three-member Board.

THE CIRCUMSTANCES CASES

The applicants, Mr. Dejan Jovanović (hereinafter: the first applicant), Mr Jovica Biorac (hereinafter: the second applicant), Mr. Srećko Jolović (hereinafter: the third applicant), Mr. Radomir Morokvašić (hereinafter: the fourth applicant), Mr. Zvonko Popović (hereinafter: the fifth applicant), Mr. Saša Zuber (hereinafter: the sixth applicant) and Mr. Damir Zuber (hereinafter: the seventh applicant) were employees of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (hereinafter: MUP).

The first and second applicants were employed at the Špiljani border crossing towards Montenegro, the third and fifth applicants were employed as members of the Administration for Fire and Rescue Units, firefighters in the fire department in Novi Pazar, the fourth applicant was employed at the border crossing towards the Republic of Croatia (Danube - Bezdan), and the sixth and seventh applicants were employed at the Sombor Police Department - Apatin Police Station. 

All the applicants filed lawsuits against their employer to the competent basic courts for the payment of unpaid wages based on overtime work, night work and work during national and religious holidays. The first, second, third and fifth applicants filed lawsuits with the First Basic Court in Belgrade, and the remaining three applicants with the Basic Court in Sombor.

All first-instance courts rejected the applicants' claims as unfounded. The first-instance verdicts were confirmed by the competent appellate courts.

Dissatisfied with the outcome of the proceedings before the courts of general jurisdiction, the applicants filed constitutional appeals with the Constitutional Court (Už-2681/2014, Už-1447/2014, Už-5541/2013, Už-8561/2014, Už-1836/2015, Už-4208/2015) which were rejected as unfounded. The constitutional appeal of the seventh applicant was rejected by the decision of the Constitutional Court Už-126/2015 of March 2, 2017, regarding complaints about the violation of the right to a fair trial, while it was rejected regarding complaints about uneven judicial practice due to the absence of "deep and long-lasting differences that led to legal uncertainty."

COMPLAINTS APPLICANTS AND THE PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT

The applicants submitted applications to the Court in June 2016, and in February, July, September and October 2017.

In the petitions, they complained about the violation of the right to a fair trial from Article 6, paragraph 1. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter: the Convention) claiming that the rejection of their civil lawsuits and the alleged flagrantly uneven jurisprudence of domestic courts regarding the merits of their disputes created legal uncertainty and led to a denial of justice. Some applicants complained about (1) inconsistent judicial practice  of the Supreme and Constitutional Courts and/or their various chambers, especially with regard to the availability of appeals on legal issues (revision) in this type of disputes and/or (2) violation of their property rights under Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (first, second, third and fifth applicants).

THE DECISION THE COURT

• Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention

The claims of the applicants were rejected in the period from June 2013 to May 2015, based on a comparison of their salary coefficients with the coefficients of other police officers, and in the same period the same claims of their colleagues were accepted, which led to "deep and long-lasting differences" in the jurisprudence of the appellate courts, which were harmonizedlegal position of the Supreme Court from November 10, 2015.

According to the Court's understanding, the applicants were in the same legal situation as the applicants in the caseŠabanović et al. against Serbia (No. 39819/16 and 4 others, dated October 7, 2025). Bearing in mind the Court's conclusion in that case that the findings and interpretations of the law by the courts cannot be considered arbitrary or obviously unreasonable, the fact that the petitioners' claims were decided before the adoption of the legal position of the Supreme Court is not sufficient in itself to represent a violation of the principle of legal certainty.

Following the above, the Court assessed that the complaints were clearly unfounded and thatmust be rejected in accordance with Article 35, para. 3(a) and 4 of the Convention.

• Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention

In relation to the complaints of the first three and fifth applicants that their right to property was violated, the Court pointed out that it considered complaints of the same content in the caseŠabanović et al. against Serbia and declared them incompatibleratione materiae in connection with the provision of Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the Convention, and that he finds no basis for a different conclusion in this case.

Consequently, the Court assessed that the complaints of the first three and the fifth applicantincompatibleratione materiae with the provisions of the Convention and its accompanying protocol andhe rejected them in accordance with Article 35, paragraph 4 of the Convention.