Rajko GRBIĆ and 6 others. against Serbia

The European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) is16. on September 2025, and on October 9, 2025, announced the decision in the caseRajko Grbić and others. against Serbia, number 23420/22.

It's a decisionbroughtthree-member Board.

THE CIRCUMSTANCES CASES

Due to the excessive length of litigation, that is, bankruptcy proceedings, the applicants expressed objections in order to speed up the proceedings on the basis of Art. 6 and 7 of the Law on Protection of the Right to a Trial within a Reasonable Time.

Although the competent courts found that their right to a trial within a reasonable time had been violated, they rejected their requests for compensation for the costs of the proceedings based on objections.

Dissatisfied with the outcome of the proceedings regarding the reimbursement of costs, the applicants filed constitutional appeals with the Constitutional Court.

The Constitutional Court rejected the constitutional appeals of the applicants, finding that the non-awarding of costs in the proceedings based on the objection to speed up the proceedings cannot be considered an issue of constitutional importance, nor that the potential failure of the competent court when deciding on this issue could have the weight of violating the right guaranteed by the Constitution, i.e. that the Constitutional Court is not competent to, acting on a constitutional appeal, as an instance (higher) court, once again examines the legality of contested decisions.

COMPLAINTS APPLICANTS AND THE PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT

The petitioners submitted petitions to the Court in April and December 2022, as well as in February 2023.

In the petitions, they 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), considering that the rejection of their requests for reimbursement of the costs of the proceedings, as well as the "flagrantly different case law of the domestic courts" in this matter, led to legal uncertainty and denial of justice.

THE DECISION THE COURT

With regard to the applicants' complaints that the domestic courts applied "flagrantly different jurisprudence", the Court noted that they had failed to substantiate this claim in their constitutional appeals by providing any copies of relevant domestic court decisions which they claimed proved the alleged disparity. The court assessed that with this omission, the applicants deprived the Constitutional Court of an appropriate opportunity to assess the merits of their complaints.

In view of the above, the Court dismissed the complaints of the applicants in connection withallegedly rejected by the uneven jurisprudence of domestic courts due to non-exhaustion of domestic legal remedies.

Considering the complaints of the applicants that the decisions of the domestic courts not to award them the costs of the proceedings were contrary to the relevant domestic legislation and therefore arbitrary, the Court noted that at the time when the objections were decided in order to speed up the proceedings of the applicants, the Law on the Protection of the Right to a Trial within a Reasonable Time did not contain a provision that explicitly allows the awarding of the costs of the proceedings and that therefore when deciding whether the costs will be awarded to the parties whose objections are upheldenor, a certain degree of interpretation by domestic courts was required. Also, the Court stated that the domestic courts stated the reasons for rejecting the petitioners' request referring to the absence of an explicit legal basis for the allocation of costs, as well as the one-sided nature of the procedure for determining the violation of the right to a trial within a reasonable time. In the aforementioned circumstances, the Court assessed that the interpretation and application of domestic law by the domestic courts, as well as their conclusion that the applicants were not entitled to reimbursement of expenses according to the legislation in force at the time, were not arbitrary or clearly unreasonable.

Following the above, the Court dismissed the complaints of the applicants in connection withthe allegedly arbitrary way in which domestic courts applied domestic law, rejected as clearly unfounded.