ZUVIC v. Serbia
The European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) is13. passed in May 2025, and on June 3 of the same year announced the verdict in the case Zuvic against Serbia, number 3592/17.
The verdict was unanimousbroughtThe Council also became legally binding on September 3, 2025.
The case refers to the order of the Supreme Military Court from June 2004 to return the case against the applicant (who was then already dismissed from military service) due to the alleged abuse of official position from 2022 while he was a lieutenant in the army at the time to the Military Disciplinary Court for retrial. However, due to organizational changes in the judiciary, the Military Disciplinary Court ceased to exist and the applicant was not granted a retrial. Also, the case refers to the excessive duration of the procedure in question. The court found that the applicant's right to access the court was violated, while it did not consider the existence of a violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time, considering that the main issue has been examined and that there is no need to make a special decision on that issue. |
THE CIRCUMSTANCES CASES
The applicant (hereinafter: the applicant) was employed as a lieutenant in the service in Podgorica when disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him, in which he was sentenced to "loss of rank", which included the loss of his job.
Disciplinary proceedings were initiated in connection with the criminal proceedings against the applicant, in which he was ultimately acquitted.
The applicant subsequently asked to return to duty through disciplinary and court proceedings in Serbia, bearing in mind that Montenegro declared independence in 2006, but the domestic authorities declared themselves incompetent and instructed him to exercise his rights before the authorities in Montenegro.
Namely,the deputy military disciplinary prosecutor submitted to the Military Disciplinary Court at the General Staff of the Yugoslav Army an indictment against the applicant, due to a disciplinary offense.
The judgment of the Military Disciplinary Court at the General Staff of the Yugoslav Army of December 26, 2002 found that the applicant was guilty and was sentenced to the disciplinary penalty of "loss of rank". The aforementioned judgment was revoked by the High Military Disciplinary Court at the General Staff of the Army of Serbia and Montenegro upon the applicant's appeal, and the case was sent back for retrial.
On June 11, 2003, the Military Disciplinary Court at the General Staff of the Army of Serbia and Montenegro issued a verdict that once again found the applicant guilty and sentenced him to the disciplinary penalty of "loss of rank". The aforementioned judgment was confirmed on November 3, 2003 by the Higher Military Disciplinary Court at the General Staff of the Army of Serbia and Montenegro.
The disciplinary punishment "loss of rank" was carried out by order of the Chairman of the Supreme Defense Council of Serbia and Montenegro, and by the decision of Military Post 3272 Podgorica dated April 20, 2004, the applicant was dismissed from professional military service.
Against the verdict of the Higher Military Disciplinary Court at the General Staff of the Army of Serbia and Montenegro Dis. No. 16/03 of November 3, 2003, the applicant filed a lawsuit.
This lawsuit was accepted by the verdict of the Supreme Military Court in Belgrade dated June 29, 2004, and the verdict of the Higher Military Disciplinary Court at the General Staff of the Army of Serbia and Montenegro dated November 3, 2003 was annulled. By the same verdict, the appeals of the applicant and his lawyer were accepted, and the verdict of the Military Disciplinary Court at the General Staff of the Army of Serbia and Montenegro dated June 11, 2003 was abolished. In the explanation of this verdict, it was stated, among other things, that in the process of passing the first-instance verdict, a significant violation of the provisions of the criminal procedure was committed, because the applicant's right to defense was violated.
Disciplinary proceedings against the applicant were then conducted before the disciplinary court in Montenegro.
On January 26, 2006, the President of the Military Disciplinary Court at the Command of the Podgorica Military District submitted to the Higher Military Disciplinary Court at the Ministry of Defense a proposal for the delegation of the disciplinary case pending before that court against the applicant, with the explanation that the President and Secretary of the Podgorica Military Disciplinary Court acted in criminal proceedings against the applicant conducted before the former Military Court Podgorica, due to the criminal offense of abuse of official position and the criminal offense of illegal trade.
By the decision of the Higher Military Disciplinary Court at the Ministry of Defense dated March 9, 2006, the Military Disciplinary Court at the Belgrade Military District Command was appointed to act as the competent court in the case against the applicant, with the explanation that there are no other experts in the Military Disciplinary Court in Podgorica who could act in this disciplinary case.
On May 25, 2009, the applicant submitted a motion to the Military Disciplinary Court at the Belgrade Military District Command to continue the case, and On February 28, 2012, he submitted a proposal to suspend the disciplinary proceedings against him.
With the decision of the first-instance military disciplinary court in Belgrade from November 2, 2012, that court announcedreally and physically incompetentfor handling the disciplinary case in question.
The applicant filed an appeal against the aforementioned decision, which was rejected as unfounded by the decision of the Higher Military Disciplinary Court at the Ministry of Defense dated November 28, 2012.
The applicant filed a lawsuit against the second-instance decision, which was rejected as unfounded by the judgment of the Administrative Court.U. 5027/13 of October 1, 2015.
The applicant submitted two constitutional appeals to the Constitutional Court. The first - due to the violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time in the disciplinary proceedings conducted before the first-instance Military Disciplinary Court in Belgrade in the case of Dis. No. 28/06 (Už-2467/2013), and the other against the judgment of the Administrative Court U. 5027/13 of October 1, 2015 (Už-7382/2015).
The Constitutional Court combined the proceedings on the aforementioned constitutional appeals and on April 21, 2016, issued a decisionUž-2467/2013 by which he accepted the applicant's constitutional appeal and found that in the disciplinary proceedings conducted before the first-instance Military Disciplinary Court in Belgrade, his right to a trial within a reasonable time was violated and found that the right to compensation for non-material damages in the amount of 900 euros in dinar equivalent, while in the remaining part he rejected the constitutional appeal.
COMPLAINTS OF THE APPLICANT AND THE PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT
The applicant submitted an application to the Court on December 19, 2019.
In the petition, he complained about the violation of the right to a fair trial from Article 6 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter: the Convention) due to the refusal of domestic authorities to decide on his request for reinstatement despite the fact that he is a citizen of Serbia, that he resides in Serbia and that the army of the State Union of Serbia and Montenegro has been transformed into two separate entities since 2006 (the army of Serbia and the army of Montenegro).
The applicant also complained about the length of the disciplinary procedure.
THE DECISION THE COURT
The court, first of all, assessed that the civil aspect of Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention was applicable to the disputed disciplinary procedure, because the domestic law at the time in question allowed the applicant access to the court in order to challenge his dismissal.
When deciding on the merits of the case, the Court recalled its practice regarding the right of access to the court, as an aspect of the right to a fair trial. In this sense, the Court stated that the applicant's specific case does not refer to the right to initiate the procedure, but to the right to obtain a court decision after the procedure has been initiated, bearing in mind that his case was already fully resolved once before the Supreme Military Court ordered the procedure to be repeated.
The court further stated, among other things, that The Military Disciplinary Court in Belgrade announced that it was not legally and physically competent to act in the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant, which, in the Court's opinion, was excessive formalism.
The court concluded that the excessively restrictive interpretation of the Military Disciplinary Court at the Belgrade Military District Command in connection with the request to revoke the order for the dismissal of the applicant, together with the subsequent transfer of that case to Montenegro, weakened the very essence of the applicant's right to access the court for the purpose of determining his civil rights and obligations.
Following the above, the Court determined that the applicant's right to access the court, as an element of the right to a fair trial, from Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention, was violated.
The court did not specifically consider the applicant's complaints regarding the duration of the disciplinary procedure, judging that the main legal issue raised in the petition had been examined.
FAIRLY SATISFACTION (Article 41 of the Convention)
The court obliged the Republic of Serbia to pay the applicant the amount of 3,600.00 euros in compensation for non-material damage and the amount of 1,170.00 euros in the name of costs of the procedure.