Milan KRSTIC and 8 others. against Serbia

On September 1, 2026, the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) made, and on September 25 of the same year published a decision in the caseMilanKrstić and 8 others. against Serbia, number 29477/11.

It's a decisionbrought Board.

THE CIRCUMSTANCES CASES

The applicants, Mr. Milan Krstić (hereinafter: the first applicant), Mr Dragan Godar (hereinafter: second applicant), Mr. Ljubomir Bekeš (hereinafter: third applicant), Mr. Nikola Dulić (hereinafter: fourth applicant), Mr. Stipan Bašić (hereinafter: fifth applicant), Mr. Vojislav Saulić (sixth applicant), Mr. Dragan Koldžić (seventh applicant), Mr. Tomislav Vujković (eighth applicant) and  Mr. Miladin Đuričić (ninth applicant) were employed in the Ministry of Internal Affairs (hereinafter: MUP).

The first applicant was employed at the Loznica Police Station - Šabac Police Department, the second, the third, the seventh and eighth applicants were employed in the Protection and Rescue Sector of the MUP of Serbia - Subotica Department, the fourth, fifth and sixth applicants were employed in the Subotica Police Department, and the ninth applicant was employed in the Krupanj Police Station - Šabac Police Department.

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 and ninth applicants submitted lawsuits to the Basic Court in Loznica, and the other applicants to the Basic Court in Subotica.

The basic court in Loznica rejected the claims of the first and ninth applicants as unfounded and those judgments were confirmed by the judgments of the Court of Appeal.

The basic court in Subotica accepted the claims of the second, third, fourth, sixth, seventh and eighth applicants in full, and partially in the case of the fifth applicant. In the case of the second, third, fourth and fifth applicants, the Appellate Court in Novi Sad annulled the verdicts and sent the case back for retrial, in which the applicants' claims were again adopted. Those judgments were changed by the Appellate Court in Novi Sad and the claims of the applicants were rejected with final force and effect. The judgments by which the claims of the sixth, seventh and eighth applicants were adopted were modified by the judgments of the Appellate Court in Novi Sad without returning the case for retrial.

Dissatisfied with the outcome of the proceedings before the courts of general jurisdiction, the applicants are filed constitutional appeals with the Constitutional Court (Už-6206/2011,Už-5378/2015, Už-7301/2015, Už-5378/2015, Už-8198/2015, Už-6484/2015, Už-8353/2014, Už-6484/2015, Už-1338/2015). The constitutional appeals of the second and fifth applicants were rejected due to non-exhaustion of legal remedies, and the constitutional appeals of the other applicants were rejected as unfounded.

COMPLAINTS APPLICANTS AND THE PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT

The applicants submitted petitions to the Court in February and April 2017, as well as in February 2018.

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. Certain applicants complained about (1) inconsistent case law  of the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court and/or their various chambers, especially with regard to the availability of appeals on legal issues (revision) in this type of dispute and/or (2) the lack of an effective remedy, as guaranteed by Article 13 of the Convention.

THE DECISION THE COURT

• Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention

The court noted that the applicants' claims were rejected in the period from April 2014 to September 2015 by comparing their earnings coefficients with the coefficients of other civilian police officers. In the subjectŠabanović et al. against Serbia (number 39819/16 and 4 others, dated October 7, 2025), the Court noted that in the same period, the courts accepted the claims of fellow applicants by comparing their salary coefficients with the coefficients of authorized police officers, which led to "deep and long-lasting differences" in judicial practice.

On November 10, 2015, the then Supreme Court of Cassation adoptedlegal position according to which the "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, thus the inconsistencies were reconciled in a reasonably short period of time.

Given that the applicants in this case are in exactly the same situation as the applicants in the caseŠabanović et al, and in that case the Court took the position that the findings of the domestic courts and their interpretation of the law cannot be interpreted as arbitrary or obviously unreasonable and that the fact that the disputed decisions were made before the adoption of the legal position of the Supreme Court of Cassation cannot be considered sufficient for the violation of legal certainty,The court rejected the applicants' complaints regarding the uneven jurisprudence of domestic courts as clearly unfounded, in accordance with the provisions of Article 35, paragraph. 3. (a) and 4. of the Convention.  

The Constitutional Court, referring to the Conclusions of the Civil Department of the Supreme Court of Cassation of March 3 and 10, 2015, rejected the constitutional appeals of the second and fifth applicants for not filing a review against the second-instance judgments, because the first-instance decisions in their cases were annulled after February 1, 2012, and the final decision was made after May 31, 2014, at the same time giving a deadline of 30 days for submitting an audit. Although the third and fourth applicants were in the same legal situation as the second and fifth, their constitutional appeals were not dismissed for failure to declare a review, but rejected as unfounded.

Although the aforementioned differences appeared at the level of the Constitutional Court, they, according to the Court, did not relate to the main aspect of the applicants' case and were not "deep and long-lasting". Following the above,The court rejected the applicants' complaints regarding the uneven jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court as clearly unfounded, in accordance with the provisions of Article 35, paragraph. 3. (a) and 4. of the Convention.

• Article 13 of the Convention

In connection with the allegations of the second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth applicants that their right to an effective legal remedy from Article 13 of the Convention was violated, the Court assessed that they complained about the same issues as under Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention, and rejected these complaints asobviously unfounded, in accordance with the provisions of Article 35, para. 3. (a) and 4. of the Convention.