Miljan MILJKOVIC v Serbia - 39992/08 [2012] ECHR 275 (31 January 2012)

judgment ( nos. 47460/07, 49257/07, 49265/07, 1028/08, 11746/08, 14387/08, 15094/08, 16159/08, 18876/08, 18882/08, 18997/08, 22997/08, 23007/08, 23100/08, 23102/08, 26892/08, 26908/08, 29305/08, 29306/08, 29323/08, 29389/08, 30792/08, 30795/08, 31202/08, 31968/08, 32120/08, 32537/08, 32661/08, 32666/08 and 36079/08, §§ 20-29, 5 October 2010). COMPLAINTS The applicants complained under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention that the case-law of the domestic courts concerning the payment of the same salary increase granted to a certain category of police officers was flagrantly inconsistent. THE LAW The Court considers that, in accordance with Rule 42 § 1 of the Rules of Court, the applications should be joined, given their similar factual and legal background. The Government maintained that the applicants had not exhausted all effective domestic remedies within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention. In particular, they had failed to lodge a constitutional appeal with the Constitutional Court of Serbia. The applicants stated that the constitutional complaint should not be deemed as an effective legal remedy in general. The above objection falls to be examined under Article 35 § 1 of the Convention which reads as follows: “ The Court may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted, according to the generally recognised rules of international law, and within a period of six months from the date on which the final decision was taken.” The Court recalls that it has already held that a constitutional appeal should, in principle, be considered as an effective domestic remedy within the meaning of Article 35 § 1 of the Convention in respect of all applications introduced as of 7 August 2008 against Serbia (see Vinčić and Others v. Serbia , ( nos. 44698/06, 44700/06, 44722/06, 44725/06, 49388/06, 50034/06, 694/07, 757/07, 758/07, 3326/07, 3330/07, 5062/07, 8130/07, 9143/07, 9262/07, 9986/07, 11197/07, 11711/07, 13995/07, 14022/07, 20378/07, 20379/07, 20380/07, 20515/07, 23971/07, 50608/07, 50617/07, 4022/08, 4021/08, 29758/07 and 45249/07 , § 51, 1 December 2009). It does not see any reason to hold otherwise in the present case. The Court notes that the present applications were introduced before this Court between 11 August 2008 and 20 February 2009 (for the date of introduction of each application see annex). Before submitting their applications to the Court, the applicants have neither attempted to exhaust the constitutional complaint, nor shown that it would have been for any reason inadequate or ineffective in the particular circumstances of their cases. The Court sees no special circumstances absolving the applicants from the obligation to use this remedy (see, mutatis mutatis , Akdivar and Others v. Turkey , judgment of 16 September 1996, Reports of Judgments and Decisions 1996-IV, § 67). Thus, the Court finds that these applications must be rejected as inadmissible for non-exhaustion of domestic remedies, pursuant to Article 35 §§ 1 and 4 of the Convention. For these reasons, the Court unanimously Decides to join the applications, and Declares the applications inadmissible. Françoise Elens-Passos András Sajó Deputy Registrar President ANNEX No. Application no. Lodged on Applicants 39992/08 11 August 2008 Mr Miljan Miljković (“the first applicant”) 39993/08 11 August 2008 Mr Miroslav Mihajlović (“the second applicant”) 42574/08 22 August 2008 Mr Mijodrag Jovanović (“the third applicant”) 42633/08 22 August 2008 Mr Slaviša Milutinović (“the fourth applicant”) 42691/08 22 August 2008 Mr Saša Vukadinović (“the fifth applicant”) 901/09 16 December Mr Miljan Miljojković (“the sixth applicant”) 906/09 16 December Mr Veselin Kuč (“the seventh applicant”) 910/09 16 December Mr Milan Vučinić (“the eight applicant”) 6234/09 22 January Mr Saša Đorđević (“the ninth applicant”) 6245/09 19 January Mr Oliver Radosavljević (“the tenth applicant”) 6251/09 22 January Mr Bogoljub Mihajlović (“the eleventh applicant”) 6261/09 19 January Mr Srđan Jevtić (“the twelfth applicant”) 8633/09 3 February Mr Zoran Bošković (“the thirteenth applicant”) 8638/09 3 February Mr Radiša Aritonović (“the fourteenth applicant”) 9675/09 9 February Mr Radovan Radonjić (“the fifteenth applicant”) 9998/09 11 February Mr Zoran Jovanović (“the sixteenth applicant”) 10497/09 7 February Mr Nikola Vukićević (“the seventeenth applicant”) 11597/09 20 February Mr Svetislav Milosavljević (“the eighteen applicant) All reference to Kosovo, whether to the territory, institutions or population, in this judgment shall be understood in full compliance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 and without prejudice to the status of Kosovo. BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII