Miodrag Mirkovski et al.
European Court of Human Rights (hereinafter: the Court) is 3. December 2024. brought, and 16. January 2025. published a decision in the caseMiodragMirkovski and others against Serbia, No. 84712/17.
The decision isbroughtThe three-member committee.
The case refers to the alleged uneven practice of domestic courts due to less disbursed earnings based on displacement, as well as the alleged arbitrariness and lack of explanation of domestic decisions with this regard. |
Circumstances Case
The applicants in the period from 2008. until 2011. year employed in PD "Thermal power plant and mines Kostolac, d.o.o. Kostolac "(now EPS - Branch" Thermal Power Plant and Kopovi Kostolac "), for which time they were not paid in shifts, They submitted a lawsuit against the mentioned company to the Basic Court in Požarevac.
The Basic Court in Požarevac is 17. Marta 2014, by judgment of P1. 378/11 refused to claim the applicants. The Court of Appeals in Kragujevac is a judgment of GŽ1. 2122/14 of 28. April 2015 refused as unfounded appeals of the applicants and confirmed the first instance judgment of the Basic Court in Požarevac. This verdict is presented to the applicants 8. May 2015. years.
The judgments of the courts were based on the point of view that the salaries of the applicants had already included an increase in shifts, and called on relevant regulations in this regard.
Dissatisfied with the outcome of the proceedings before regular courts, the applicants 18. May 2015. submitted a constitutional court constitutional complaint, complaining about the improper application of the law and the arbitrary decisions of domestic courts. The constitutional complaint was supplemented by 8. September 2015, appealing the court of the Court of Appeals from 19. August 2015. year, which was confirmed by the first-instance verdict in favor of other employees in the same company, where they were awarded a fee for work in shifts. The verdict was invited to the same judgment, which submitted 19. December 2016., complaining that the practice of domestic courts was uneven.
The Constitutional Court rejected the Constitutional Complaint of the Applicants and called for his earlier decision of 20. October 2016. which he brought in connection with the same question. The Constitutional Court pointed out that the verdicts were adopted in relation to the same factual and legal situation, with the same reasoning as the judgments appealed, were in detail and clearly reasoned and based on the constitutionally acceptable and impairworm interpretation of the relevant law. The Constitutional Court also rejected the complaints of the applicants to the same protection of the right as untimely, as it is against the court's judgment in Belgrade to the applicants (8. May 2015) to their reference to uneven court practice (8. September 2015) passed more than 30 days, which deadline was prescribed by the Law on Constitutional Court for the submission of a constitutional complaint.
Complaints Applicants and Before Court Procedures
The applicants submitted the application to the Court 6. In December 2017. years.
In the representations, they complained about the violation of the right to a fair trial referred to in Article 6. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter: the Convention), claiming that the practice of domestic courts is uneven and that the judgments were arbitrary and without explanation.
Decision Court
The Court regarded the complainants of the alleged uneven practice of domestic courts determined that the applicants in their constitutional complaint from18. May 2015 years, submitted in the law prescribed by the deadline, are not explicitly essentially those complaints. The first highlighting of these complaints was in addition to the constitutional complaint8. September 2015 years, per deadline of 30 days, prescribed by the Law on Constitutional Court. Therefore, the Court rejected this complaint of the applicants pursuant to Article 35. 1. and 4. Convention, due to the inexhausting of domestic remedies.
In relation to the complainants of domestic decisions, the Court pointed out that his role is not to act as a judgment of the national courts only if their conclusions may be considered arbitrary or obviously unreasonable. Since the applicants had the opportunity to present their arguments before domestic courts, and that courts, including the Constitutional Court, dealt with these arguments in their decisions that were properly reasoned and unreasonable, the court is concluded that the complainants of the applicants were obviously unfounded, as unacceptable in terms of Article 35, paragraph 3 (s) and Article 35. paragraph 4. Convention.