Miodrag DRASKIC against Serbia
On September 8, 2026, the European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) issued a decision in the case, and on October 1 of the same year MiodragDraškić against Serbia, number 33538/17.
It's a decisionbrought three-member Board.
The case refers to the allegedly uneven domestic judicial practice regarding requests for payment of salary supplements for overtime work, night work and work during national and religious holidays performed by police officers employed by the Ministry of the Interior. The court rejected the applicant's complaints regarding Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention due to their obviousness groundlessness, while the applicant's complaints regarding Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention were rejected asratione materiae incompatiblee with the Convention and Protocols attached to it. |
THE CIRCUMSTANCES CASES
The applicant, Mr. Miodrag Draškić (hereinafter: the applicant), was a member of the Ministry of Internal Affairs (hereinafter: MUP) employed as an assistant shift leader of the Duty Service, Police Outpost - Police Station Vršac, Police Administration Pančevo.
He filed a lawsuit against his employer to the Basic Court in Pancevo, which, by the judgment of P1. 1326/11 of March 24, 2015 rejected his claim.
The Appellate Court in Belgrade ruled Gž1. 1147/15 of June 22, 2015 confirmed the first-instance judgment and rejected the claim of the applicant.
Unsatisfied with the outcome of the proceedings before the courts of general jurisdiction, the applicant filed a constitutional appeal, which was rejected as unfounded by the decision of the Constitutional Court Už - 5301/2015 of December 13, 2016.
In the explanation of the decision, the Constitutional Court stated that the applicant was, in the civil proceedings that preceded the constitutional court, in an identical legal and factual situation as the applicant of the constitutional appeal in case Už-3827/2012 and for that reason rejected his constitutional appeal as unfounded.
COMPLAINTS OF THE APPLICANT AND THE PROCEDURE BEFORE THE COURT
The applicant submitted a petition to the Court on April 22, 2017.
In the petition, he complained about the violation of the right to a fair trial from Article 6, paragraph 1. of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter: the Convention) claiming that the rejection of his claim and the alleged flagrantly uneven jurisprudence of the domestic courts regarding the merits of their disputes created legal uncertainty and led to a denial of justice. The applicant complained about the violation of the right to an effective legal remedy from Article 13 of the Convention and the violation of the right to peaceful enjoyment of property from Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention.
THE DECISION THE COURT
- Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention
a) Uneven judicial practice
The court noted that the applicant's claim was rejected on June 22, 2015 by comparing his earnings coefficient with the coefficients of other 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 the applicant's colleagues comparing his salary coefficient 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 applicant in this case is 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 dismissed the applicant's 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.
b) Explanation of the decision of the Constitutional Court
With regard to the applicant's complaints related to the explanation of the decision of the Constitutional Court, the Court, after reviewing the case files, and especially bearing in mind the evidence of inconsistent judicial practice presented by the applicant in his constitutional appeal, assessed that the complaint was unsubstantiated and that the Constitutional Court provided relevant and sufficient reasons for its decision.
Accordingly, the Court rejected this complaint as clearly unfounded,in accordance with the provisions of Article 35, para. 3. (a) and 4. of the Convention.
- Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the Convention
Bearing in mind that the Court is in the caseŠabanović et al. against Serbia already considered complaints identical to the applicant's and declared themratione materiae incompatible with that provision of the Convention, and in this case he decided the same, in accordance with the provisions of the article35, paragraph 4 of the Convention.