VUCKOVIC AND OTHERS v. SERBIA - 17153/11 - HEJUD [2012] ECHR 1683 (28 August 2012)

VUCKOVIC AND OTHERS v. SERBIA - 17153/11 - HEJUD [2012] ECHR 1683 (28 August 2012)

There was no violation of Article 6 § 1 as the relevant domestic case-law had been harmonised before the applicants' case was decided, eliminating judicial uncertainty. However, the exclusion of applicants from war per diem payments solely on the basis of their residence, without objective and reasonable justification, constituted discrimination in violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

Citation
[2012] ECHR 1683
Parties
Applicants: Boban Vučković and Others; Respondent: Serbia
Jurisdiction
European Union
Judgment Date
28 August 2012
Procedural Posture
Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Judgment After Joinder of 30 Applications, Post Communication, Merits and Admissibility Decided Together
Outcome
Violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1; no violation of Article 6 § 1; no separate examination under Article 1 of Protocol No. 12; applicants' just satisfaction claims dismissed; respondent state ordered to take general measures.
Legal Topics
Discrimination, Right to Property, Right to a Fair Trial, Judicial Certainty, Statute of Limitations, Military Service Compensation
Human Rights Law Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Discrimination Right to Property Right to a Fair Trial Judicial Certainty Statute of Limitations +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 31 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Boban Vučković and Others

Applicants

Serbia

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application to the European Court of Human Rights / Judgment After Joinder of 30 Applications, Post Communication, Merits and Admissibility Decided Together

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether inconsistent domestic case-law on prescription periods violated Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair trial)
  2. 2 Whether exclusion from war per diem payments based on residence constituted discrimination under Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1

Ratio Decidendi

There was no violation of Article 6 § 1 as the relevant domestic case-law had been harmonised before the applicants' case was decided, eliminating judicial uncertainty. However, the exclusion of applicants from war per diem payments solely on the basis of their residence, without objective and reasonable justification, constituted discrimination in violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.

Court Disposition

Violation of Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No. 1; no violation of Article 6 § 1; no separate examination under Article 1 of Protocol No. 12; applicants' just satisfaction claims dismissed; respondent state ordered to take general measures.

Orders

  • Respondent government must, within six months of the judgment becoming final, take all appropriate measures to secure non-discriminatory payment of war per diems to all entitled reservists, subject to reasonable and speedy verification procedures.
  • All similar pending applications before the Court are adjourned for six months from the date the judgment becomes final.