Kristina Ocebic against Serbia

European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) is 17. June 2025. brought, and 10. July 2025. published a decision in case Ćebić against Serbia, No. 38287/21.

The decision isbroughtThe three-member committee.

Circumstances Case

On 31. March 1998. the applicant (hereinafter: the applicant), As a minor prosecutor, as a legal representative, as a legal representative, filed a lawsuit in order to dismember the Municipal Court in Loznica, as a defendant, to pay off his father's appointment that allegedly received and worked in Switzerland. The same lawsuit, her mother, demanded that in the name of the minor child support, the requested money amount was worth it. In the lawsuit, the Court required the Court to commit her father to hand over the "total amount of 1,200 CHF on the basis of a children's allowance, which received from 1. October 1989. years up to 31.  March 1998. years, ie. the amount of 100 CHF per month ".

The Municipal Court in Loznica is 12. June 2000. years, on the basis of a judgment due to absence (P. 564/98) adopted the claim And, among other things, he obliged the defendant to the minor applicant in the name of the Children's Annex for the period from 1. October 1989. until 31. March 1998. It pays the total amount of 1,200 CHF, ie. The amount of 100 CHF per month, with a domicile interest. The applicant did not appeal against the first instance verdict and she became final 20. February 2001. years.

The applicant was in 2004. submitted a request for correction of the alleged error in the above-mentioned judgment, stating that the data contained in her claims clearly indicate the amount of 10,200 CHF, and not 1,200 CHF.

On 19. October 2004. The Municipal Court in Loznica refused the applicant's request for the decision of the verdict as unfounded, which the decision was confirmed by the Second Instance 30. March 2017 In the explanations of the solution, it was noted to the claim of the amount of 1,200 CHF, and that the court was notified as well as the amount of which the amendment was requested by the prosecutor, and not the court, which is a precondition for the ruling.

Dissatisfied with the outcome of the proceedings before the regular courts, the applicant stated the Constitutional Appeal, which was rejected by Decision, 2020. On October 2020. The applicant received the decision of the Constitutional Court 27. January 2021. Years.

Complaints Applicant and Before Court Procedures

The applicant submitted court 19. July 2021. years.

In the representations, the violation of the right to a fair trial referred to in Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) because the Basic Court in Loznica rejected its request for the error in the judgment of 12. June 2000. years.

Decision Court

Starting from the fact that the Convention entered into force in relation to the Republika Srije in Loznica from 12. June 2020. The Court assessed that the Court refers to the applicant's right of the first court of 12. June 2000. years, because at that moment - not before Later - the amount of damage that should be paid to the applicant.

The Court took the position that the subsequent attempt to judge from 12. June 2000. years in the period of the court (Labor Court), the Decision of the Second Court of 27. October 2020) In October 2020 years) caused by a judgment of 12. June 2000. years. The Court assessed that the procedure for the correction of the applicant could result in only the correction of the Court's Written Error and that such a legal means that could lead to a different outcome in relation to the original application of the applicant.

Consequently, the court rated the applicant incompatiblerratione temporisWith the provisions of the Convention in terms of Article 35. paragraph 3 of the Convention and rejected in accordance with the provisions of Article 35. paragraph 4 of the Convention. of the Convention.