CEDH · CASELAW;COMMUNICATEDCASES;ENG — 19 janvier 2026

.s800EAC49 { font-size:12pt } .s379BC09C { margin-top:36pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:right } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .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 } .s10950C61 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-indent:14.2pt; text-align:justify } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s33165EBA { font-family:Arial; font-size:8pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } .sF6A12959 { width:33%; height:1px; text-align:left } .s85226119 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify; font-size:10pt } .s653E6C45 { font-family:Arial; font-size:6.67pt; vertical-align:super; color:#0069d6 } Published on 9 February 2026   THIRD SECTION Application no. 34816/23 Nikola ČANOVIĆ against Serbia lodged on 15 September 2023 communicated on 19 January 2026 SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE The applicant claims that he has been employed by the Development Fund of Serbia ( Fond za razvoj Srbije ; hereinafter “the Fund”), under an indefinite duration contract, since 1 July 1998. He was assistant to the director of the Fund’s Regional Directorate, based in Priština (Kosovo [1] ), until 2002 when that branch office was closed, but the applicant’s employment status allegedly remained unchanged. After receiving reduced salary from July 1999 until March 2003, he ceased to receive any salary as of 1 April 2003. The applicant has so far instituted three sets of civil proceedings before the domestic courts. Firstly, the applicant instituted civil proceedings seeking salary arrears for the period between 1 April 2003 and 28 February 2006. On 3 October 2006, the Belgrade Basic Court accepted his claim, having found that the applicant was entitled to the unpaid salaries as his employment contract had never been terminated. This decision was upheld by the Belgrade Court of Appeals on 13 September 2007 and was, according to the applicant, fully enforced on an unspecified date. Subsequently, the applicant instituted new civil proceedings in 2008, seeking, inter alia , assignment to a post and salary arrears for the period between 1 March 2006 and, ultimately, 30 June 2012. Following a remittal in 2015, the Belgrade Basic Court and Court of Appeals, on 18 February 2015 and 18 September 2015, respectively, ruled in the applicant’s favour by referring to the above-mentioned decision of 2007. Following an appeal on points of law filed by the Fund, on 18 April 2018 the Supreme Court of Cassation overturned the said judgments and dismissed the applicant’s claims. The court determined that the applicant ought to have realised that he was no longer employed by the Fund, either as of 2002 when the regional branch in Priština had ceased to exist, or at the latest as of March 2003, when the Fund had interrupted salary payments. Consequently, the court found that the applicant should have instituted civil proceedings 15 days after becoming aware of the said facts, despite the prior final judicial decisions in the applicant’s favour and the primary finding that the applicant’s employment contract had never been terminated. Finally, the applicant instituted the third set of civil proceedings, seeking payment of salary arrears for the period between 1 July 2012 and 16 October 2015. On 24 June 2021 the Belgrade Basic Court rejected his claim as time-barred. On 10 October 2023, the Belgrade Court of Appeals overturned the first-instance decision and accepted the applicant’s claim. However, it remains unclear whether this judgement had become final. On 27 April 2023 the Constitutional Court (i) found a breach of the applicant’s right to a hearing within a reasonable time and awarded him 1,100 EUR in respect of non-pecuniary damage, and (ii) dismissed as unfounded the remainder of the applicant’s constitutional appeal concerning the arbitrariness, legal uncertainty and a lack of reasoning in respect of the decision of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 2018, as well as inconsistent case-law of that court. That decision was served on the applicant on 13 June 2023. Relying on Article 6 § 1 of the Convention, the applicant complains about the lack of overall fairness of domestic proceedings, in particular alleging: (i)   the arbitrariness, as well as a lack of reasoning and of legal certainty in the relevant decision of the Supreme Court of Cassation; (ii)   that the Supreme Court of Cassation re-established and re-assessed the key evidence on which it based its decision without holding an oral hearing and providing for adversarial proceeding; (iii)   the lack of sufficient reasoning in the decision of the Constitutional Court. QUESTIONS TO THE PARTIES 1.     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? In particular: (i) having regard to the reasons given by the Supreme Court of Cassation in its decision of 18 April 2018, was the principle of legal certainty respected and was the impugned decision sufficiently reasoned and free from arbitrariness (see, mutatis mutandis , Anđelković v.   Serbia , no.   1401/08, §§   24   and 27   in fine , 9 April 2013; Bochan v. Ukraine (no. 2)   [GC], no.   22251/08, §§ 61-65, ECHR 2015; and Khamidov v. Russia , no. 72118/01, § 170, 15 November 2007)?   (ii) was the principle of fairness respected, as regards the Supreme Court of Cassation’s alleged re-establishment and re-assessment of the evidence without holding an oral hearing and providing for an adversarial proceeding (for relevant standards on oral hearings, see Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá v. Portugal [GC], nos. 55391/13 and 2 others, §§ 187-191, 6   November 2018, with further references; compare and contrast, Helmers   v. Sweden , 29   October 1991, §§   38-39, Series A no. 212 ‑ A; for relevant principles on adversarial proceedings, Janáček v. the Czech Republic , no. 9634/17, § 46, 2   February 2023; and   Vegotex International S.A. v. Belgium [GC], no.   49812/09, § 135, 3 November 2022, with further references)?   2.     Was the decision of the Constitutional Court sufficiently reasoned, as required under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention (see, mutatis mutandis , Ramos Nunes de Carvalho e Sá , cited above, § 185; and Paun Jovanović v. Serbia , no. 41394/15, §§ 100-101 and 108-109, 7 February 2023)? [1] All reference to Kosovo, whether to the territory, institutions or population, in this document shall be understood in full compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 and without prejudice to the status of Kosovo.