Dejan Jevtić
European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) is 14. January 2025. brought, and 6. February of the same year announced a decision in the case Dejan Jevtić against Serbia, No. 34033/15.
The decision is doneo The three-member committee.
The case refers to the alleged violation of the principle of legal security in terms of lawsuits of aircraft mechanics against the company "Jat Airways" to collect overtime achieved during 2003. and 2004. years. The applicant complained about the violation of the right to a fair trial and the right to an effective legal remedy, due to allegedly uneven court practices and inefficiency of the constitutional complaint in relation to his complaint. The court rejected the application as clearly unfounded. |
Circumstances Case
The applicant was employed in the former airlineJat Airways (hereinafter: JAT) In the affairs of the aircraft mechanic, as claimed by shortened hours (36 hours per week). Since the applicant did not receive financial compensation for overtime performed in the period from February 2003. until May 2004, submitted civil lawsuit against his employer in March 2006. years. The lawsuits also filed the applicant's colleagues (one hundredth).
The former Fourth Municipal Court in Belgrade is the judgment of P1-781 / 06 of 20. November 2009. found that JAT predicted the Fortress week week, although the applicant claimed that they predicted a thirty-six-hour work week. Consequently, the applicant was found to request any payment for overtime. Nevertheless, it was also found that the applicant owed compensation for work in shifts, since he was not provided by special days of absence in accordance with the law.
The Court of Appeals in Belgrade is 2. February 2012. years, JUDGMAGE. 327/11, confirmed the first instance verdict.
Dissatisfied with the outcome of the proceedings before regular courts, the applicant filed a constitutional court constitutional complaint, which was rejected by the Decision of the UK-2532/2012 dated 26. May 2015. as obviously unfounded.
Complaints Applicant and Before Court Procedures
The applicant submitted to court 22. June 2015. years.
Referring to two final domestic judgments that identical claims of his colleagues were fully adopted, the applicant complained of uneven court practice and the absence of an effective remedy in this regard.
Decision Court
- Article 6 paragraph 1. Convention
The Court found that only two claims were adopted before 2008. year, after which all requests were rejected by the same bases as in the case of the applicant. Based on the above, the Court concluded that the Serbian judiciary harmonized its practice on this issue.
The Court pointed out that some differences in the interpretation of the domestic law inherent are the consequence of judicial systems based on the network of first instance and appellate courts, and that they are not violating the Convention alone. Taking into account the circumstances of the case, the Court found that there are no "profound" and "long-term differences" in the practice of domestic courts.
The Court also assessed that the disputed decisions of the courts in this case were well reasoned and cannot be considered arbitrary.
Accordingly, the Court rejected the application as apparently unfounded, in accordance with the provisions of Article 35. st. 3 (a) and 4. Convention.
- Article 13 of the Convention
Rating that the complaint under Article 6 of the Court concluded that the applicant has no request that may be defended in terms of Article 13. Convention, and has rejected it as evidently unfounded in accordance with the provisions of Article 35. St. 3 (a) and 4. Convention.