Dragan VESIC against Serbia

On May 19, 2026, the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) made, and on June 11 of the same year, announced its decision in the case Vesić against Serbia, number 51420/17.

It's a decisionbrought three-member Board.

THE CIRCUMSTANCES CASES

The applicant (hereinafter: the applicant), Mr. Dragan Vesić, was a member of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (hereinafter: MUP) employed at the Traffic Police Station of the Kragujevac Police Department. 

He submitted a lawsuit to the Basic Court in Kragujevac against his employer for the payment of the difference between the full amount of annual vacation pay and the amount paid to him by the employer.

The basic court in Kragujevac ruled P1. 2076/13 of March 7, 2014, adopted the claim of the applicant.

The appellate court in Kragujevac ruled Gž1. 2253/14 of December 16, 2014, changed the first-instance judgment and rejected his claim.

On June 10, 2015, the Supreme (Cassation) Court rejected the applicant's review by decision Rev2. 729/15.

Dissatisfied with the outcome of the proceedings before the courts of general jurisdiction, the applicant filed a constitutional appeal, which was rejected by the decision of the Constitutional Court Už-1293/2015 of November 24, 2016. The Constitutional Court stated in the explanation of the decision that the applicant's constitutional appeal at the time of submission was premature, because it was submitted before the decision of the then Supreme Court of Cassation on its revision, and at the same time, the applicant did not inform the Constitutional Court about the judgment of the Supreme Court of Cassation Rev2. 729/15 by which his revision was rejected as unfounded, nor did he extend the constitutional appeal to that judgment.

COMPLAINTS OF THE APPLICANT AND THE PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT

The applicant submitted a petition to the Court on July 4, 2017.

In the petition, he 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 his claim and the alleged flagrantly uneven jurisprudence of domestic courts regarding the merits of his dispute created legal uncertainty and led to a denial of justice. The applicant also complained about the violation of the right to an effective legal remedy from Article 13 of the Convention.

THE DECISION THE COURT

• Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention

a)  Uneven jurisprudence of appellate courts

The court found that until March 2013, the domestic courts accepted claims similar to the applicant's claim, and that in the period from March 2013 to August 2014, they passed judgments rejecting the claims. Since August 2014, domestic courts have consistently issued judgments rejecting claims similar to the applicant's.

Domestic courts stopped passing judgments approving claims several months before the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Kragujevac was passed, which changed the first-instance verdict and rejected the claimant's claim. The court noted that the differences in the jurisprudence of the domestic courts are "profound", as they arose in several appellate courts and "long-lasting" as they lasted for 17 months (March 2013 - August 2014).

However, the Court pointed out that the existence of contradictory court decisions is not in itself sufficient to establish a violation of the Convention, but it is necessary to determine whether there is a mechanism for eliminating inconsistencies in judicial practice and how it is applied.

Referring to the judgmentŠabanović et al. against Serbia (number 39819/16 and 4 others, dated October 7, 2025), the Court recognized the role of the Supreme Court in eliminating inconsistencies in judicial practice through a special review against a judgment due to the incorrect application of substantive law. Through that mechanism, the Supreme Court was able to resolve disputed differences and harmonize practice in a reasonably short period of time.

Although the Constitutional Court in cases similar to the applicant's found a violation of the rights of the complainants due to inconsistencies in the jurisprudence of the appellate courts, the Court emphasized that the Convention establishes a minimum standard of protection of rights, that domestic courts can provide broader standards of protection of rights from the Convention, but that such findings do not bind the Court.

Following the above, the Court assessed that the complaints are regarding the uneven practice of the appellate courtsobviously unfounded and he rejected them in accordance with the provisions of Article 35, para. 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

b)  Allegedly inconsistent judicial practice of the Constitutional Court

Regarding the applicant's claims that in cases similar to his the Constitutional Court did not reject the constitutional appeal due to prematureness, the Court established that the decisions to which the applicant referred did not refer to identical factual circumstances as in his case.

Accordingly, the Court evaluated these complaintsobviously unfounded and dismissed them in accordance with the provisions of Article 35, para. 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.

• Article 13 of the Convention

Bearing in mind that the applicant's complaints related to Article 13 of the Convention were for the same reasons as those under Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention, the Court assessed themobviously unfounded and dismissed them in accordance with the provisions of Article 35, para. 3 (a) and 4 of the Convention.