CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 7 mars 2024

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .s5E1364CA { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:14pt } .s339D85E6 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s665E407E { margin-top:66pt; margin-bottom:14pt; text-align:center; page-break-inside:avoid; page-break-after:avoid } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } Published on 25 March 2024   FOURTH SECTION Applications nos. 10152/21 and 60273/21 Zvonko MILOŠEVIĆ against Serbia lodged on 10 February 2021 and 24 November 2021 respectively communicated on 7 March 2024 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The present applications concern six separate sets of labour-related civil proceedings for damages brought by the applicant in which the same first-instance court held oral hearings in his absence, despite his requests to postpone those hearings on medical grounds, and ultimately ruled against him. In four of the appellate proceedings, brought by the applicant thereafter, the second-instance court quashed the first-instance judgments and held that the applicant’s right to a fair trial had been violated while in the remaining two appellate proceedings it upheld the impugned rulings rendered at first instance. The applicant complains under Article 6 of the Convention that the appellate court applied flagrantly different case-law to identical situations, and that the court decisions handed down in the latter two appellate proceedings were arbitrary. QUESTION TO THE PARTIES Has there been a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention? In particular, having regard to the reasons given by the Kragujevac Appeals Court in its judgments of 20 October 2016 and 7 February 2017, respectively, did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations as required by the said provision of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Anđelković v. Serbia , no. 1401/08, §   24, 9 April 2013)? Also, in the light of the applicant’s allegation that the Kragujevac Appeals Court applied flagrantly different case-law to identical situations, did the applicant have a fair hearing in the determination of his civil rights and obligations, in accordance with Article   6   § 1 of the Convention? Specifically, was the principle of legal certainty contained in this provision complied with by the domestic judiciary (see Lupeni Greek Catholic Parish and Others v.   Romania [GC], no.   76943/11, § 116, 29 November 2016; see also, mutadis mutandis , Stoilkovska v. the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , no.   29784/07, §   47, 18 July 2013)?