Djordjevic and MILOSAVLJEVIC against Serbia

On September 1, 2026, the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) issued a judgment in the case, and on September 22 of the same yearĐorđević and Milosavljević v. Serbia, no. 34317/17 and 75858/17.

It's a verdictbrought Board.

THE CIRCUMSTANCES CASES

The applicants, Mr. Milan Đorđević (hereinafter: the first applicant) and Mr Saša Milosavljević (hereinafter: second applicant) were employed in the Ministry of Internal Affairs (hereinafter: MUP).

The first applicant was employed as an assistant shift leader at the Police Outpost in the Police Station in Odzaci, PU Sombor, while the second applicant was employed as the leader of the fire rescue group, the fire rescue company in Pancevo. 

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 applicant filed a complaint with the Basic Court in Sombor, while the second applicant filed a complaint with the Basic Court in Pančevo.

The basic court in Sombor ruled P1. 213/14 of April 20, 2015 rejected the claim of the first applicant as unfounded, and his appeal was rejected by the judgment of the Appellate Court in Novi Sad Gž1. 1989/15 of December 16, 2015.

After the appeal procedure annulled the first-instance decision by which the claim of the second applicant was adopted, the Basic Court in Pancevo repeated the procedure with the verdict P1. 208/14 of September 10, 2015 rejected his claim, which judgment was confirmed by the judgment of the Appellate Court in Belgrade Gž1. 3055/15 of December 4, 2015.

Dissatisfied with the outcome of the proceedings before the courts of general jurisdiction, the applicants reported to the Constitutional Court constitutional appeals. The Constitutional Court, by decision Už-1230/2016 of December 8, 2016, rejected the appeal of the first applicant as unfounded, while by decision Už-1172/2016 of September 20, 2017, the constitutional appeal of the second applicant was rejected because he did not submit evidence of the unequal treatment of the courts against which he complained to the Constitutional Court.

COMPLAINTS APPLICANTS AND THE PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT

The applicants submitted petitions to the Court in April 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 domestic courts rejected their requests, while at the same time inconsistently ruling both in favor of and against hundreds of their fellow police officers, despite the fact that their requests were based on the same or similar facts and concerned identical legal issues, which created legal uncertainty and represented a denial of justice. The applicants also claimed that domestic courts arbitrarily interpreted and applied substantive law when rejecting their requests.

In his application, the second applicant complained about the violation of the prohibition of discrimination from Article 14 of the Convention for the reason that his colleagues, who were in the same factual and legal situation as him, were paid salary supplements.

THE DECISION THE COURT

• Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention

The court noted that the then Supreme Court of Cassation adopted on November 10, 2015legal position according to which a "comparable employee" (the term "civil servant" from Article 147, paragraph 1 of the Law on Police) had to be an authorized officer who had the same level of education as the applicant, but who did not work outside regular working hours, which harmonized the judicial practice regarding the payment of allowances for working outside working hours.

In the subjectŠabanović et al. (number 39819/16 and 4 other petitions, dated October 7, 2025) the petitioners' claims were rejected before the then Supreme Court of Cassation issued a legal opinion defining the term "comparable employee", so that circumstance itself did not constitute a violation of the principle of legal certainty. In contrast to that case, in this case, the second-instance courts are the verdicts that rejected the requests of the applicants, contrary to the legal position of the Supreme Court of Cassation,  brought about a month after its adoption.

As the petitioners did not file a review against the second-instance decisions, and the Constitutional Court therefore did not reject or reject their constitutional appeals, the Constitutional Court, in the opinion of the Court, was obliged to investigate the complaints of the petitioners regarding the uneven judicial practice, which it did not do, so the mechanism for harmonizing judicial practice in this case did not lead to an outcome in accordance with the Convention. 

Taking into account the fact that the Constitutional Court appreciated the evidence of the first applicant on the inconsistency of judicial practice without considering the decisive fact that the second-instance judgment rejecting his claim was made after the legal position of the Supreme (Cassation) Court, contrary to the interpretation presented therein, the Court considers that the rejection of the complaints of the second applicant due to non-exhaustion of legal remedies would be excessive formalism, because in all other aspects the applicants are in the same factual and legal situation. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Court rejected the Government's complaint about non-exhaustion of legal remedies in respect of the second applicant.

Following the above, the Court assessed thatthere was a violation of Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention.

• Article 14 of the Convention

In connection with the complaint of the second applicant regarding the violation of the prohibition of discrimination from Article 14 of the Convention, the Court took the position that it has considered all legal issues and that there is no need to consider that complaint as well.

FAIRLY SATISFACTION (Article 41 of the Convention)

The court obliged the Republic of Serbia to pay 1,220 euros to the first applicant and 2,260 euros to the second applicant.