ODLUKA Evropskog suda za ljudska prava po predstavci broj 14157/23, Kasapović protiv Srbije

TREĆE ODELJENJE

ODLUKA

Predstavka broj 14157/23Dobrivoj KASAPOVIĆprotiv Srbije

Evropski sud za ljudska prava (Treće odeljenje), na zasedanju Odbora 8. septembra 2026. godine u sastavu:

Peeter Roosma, predsednik,

Úna Ní Raifeartaigh,

Mateja Đurović, sudije,

i Olga Chernishova, zamenica sekretara Odeljenja,

Imajući u vidu:

predstavku (broj 14157/23) protiv Republike Srbije koju je 14. marta 2023. godine, prema članu 34. Konvencije za zaštitu ljudskih prava i osnovnih sloboda (u daljem tekstu: „Konvencija”), Sudu podneo državljanin Srbije, gospodin Dobrivoj Kasapović (u daljem tekstu: „podnosilac”), rođen 1960. godine i koji živi u Bačkom Jarku, a koga je zastupao gospodin N. Tadić, advokat iz Novog Sada;

odluku da se o pritužbi u vezi sa pravom podnosioca predstavke na pristup sudu i pravičnu raspravu obavesti Vlada Republike Srbije (u daljem tekstu: „Vlada”), koju zastupa njena zastupnica, gospođa Z. Jadrijević Mladar, i da se ostatak predstavke proglasi nedopuštenim;

Zapažanja strana u sporu;

Nakon većanja, odlučuje kako sledi:

OKOLNOSTI PREDMETA

1. Predstavka se odnosi na pravo podnosioca na obrazloženu sudsku odluku prema članu 6. stav 1. Konvencije i, u tom kontekstu, na njegovo pravo na pristup sudu u parničnom postupku koji se tiče prava iz radnog odnosa.

2. Osnovni sud u Novom Sadu je 2. marta 2017. godine delimično usvojio zahteve podnosioca koji se odnose na naknadu po osnovu ugovora o radu (zaostale zarade, isplata naknada za prekovremeni rad). Sud je odbio deo zahteva podnosioca koji se odnosio na naknadu po osnovu rada u smenama. Sud nije našao dokaze koji bi potkrepili navod podnosioca da je radio u smenama.

3. Apelacioni sud u Novom Sadu je 15. decembra 2017. godine delimično potvrdio presudu od 2. marta 2017. godine, preinačivši odluku nižestepenog suda kojom su usvojeni zahtevi podnosioca za isplatu naknade za prekovremeni rad.

4. Podnosilac je 15. decembra 2017. godine izjavio reviziju, osporavajući odluku Apelacionog suda kojom je odbijen njegov tužbeni zahtev za isplatu naknade za prekovremeni rad i rad u smenama. Takođe je osporio odluku prvostepenog suda kojom su delimično usvojena dva njegova zahteva u vezi sa isplatom razlike u neto zaradi.

5. Vrhovni kasacioni sud je 16. septembra 2020. godine, pozivajući se na član 403. stav 2. tačka 2) Zakona o parničnom postupku, kojim su propisani uslovi dopuštenosti revizije prema kojima je ona dopuštena u slučaju kada je drugostepeni sud preinačio presudu nižestepenog suda, odlučio isključivo o zahtevu podnosioca koji se odnosio na isplatu naknade za prekovremeni rad. Vrhovni kasacioni sud je odbio zahtev u tom pogledu i nije razmatrao preostale elemente iznete u zahtevu za reviziju.

6. Nakon toga, podnosilac je podneo ustavnu žalbu, ističući povredu prava na pravično suđenje, uz obrazloženje da Vrhovni kasacioni sud nije odlučio o svim njegovim zahtevima.

7. Ustavni sud je 29. septembra 2022. godine odbacio ustavnu žalbu kao žalbu koja ima karakter „četvrtog stepena”.

8. Podnosilac se prituživao da je propust Vrhovnog suda da razmotri njegove argumente, koji se odnose na pravo na naknadu na osnovu rada u smenama, predstavljao povredu njegovih prava iz člana 6. stav 1. Konvencije.

OCENA SUDA

9. Vlada je osporila navode podnosioca, ističući da su, pre odluke Vrhovnog kasacionog suda, prvostepeni i drugostepeni sud detaljno razmotrili sve zahteve i žalbe. Vlada je dalje isticala, pozivajući se na član 403. Zakona o parničnom postupku, da je Vrhovni kasacioni sud postupio u okviru svoje nadležnosti i u skladu sa propisanim zakonskim ograničenjima u pogledu dopuštenosti zahteva za reviziju. Ona se nije složila sa stavom da je Vrhovni kasacioni sud povredio sȃmu suštinu prava podnosioca na pristup sudu. Naposletku, Vlada je iznela mišljenje da su zahtevi podnosioca koji se odnose na rad u smenama u svakom slučaju bili nedopušteni ratione valoris, budući da nisu dostigli zakonski propisani novčani prag.

10. Sud ponavlja da viši sud nije dužan da pruži detaljnije obrazloženje kada jednostavno primenjuje određenu zakonsku odredbu kako bi odbacio reviziju usled nedostatka izgleda za uspeh, bez pružanja dodatnog objašnjenja (videti Gorou protiv Grčke (broj 2) [VV], broj 12686/03, stav 41, od 20. marta 2009. godine, i Burg i dr. protiv Francuske (odl.), broj 34763/02, od 28. januara 2003. godine; videti takođe opšta načela u predmetu Tsiolis protiv Grčke, broj 51774/17, st. 61–62, od 19. novembra 2024. godine, sa daljim referencama).

11. U predmetnom slučaju, Vrhovni kasacioni sud je, iako na veoma sažet način, odlučio o dopuštenosti zahteva podnosioca za reviziju. Treba priznati da je isti ograničio sebe na to da ukaže da će razmotriti samo one prigovore koji se odnose na preinačenje dela presude Apelacionog suda, pozivajući se na relevantne zakonske odredbe. U okolnostima predmetnog slučaja, Sud prihvata da je Vrhovni kasacioni sud dovoljno jasno odredio obim svog preispitivanja i odbacuje navod podnosioca da taj sud nije odlučio o njegovim prigovorima u vezi sa radom u smenama, a koje Apelacioni sud prethodno nije razmotrio (videti stav 5 gore).

12. Imajući u vidu gorenavedeno, kao i činjenicu da se podnosilac nije pozvao ni na jednu odredbu domaćeg prava koja bi mogla da potkrepi njegovu tvrdnju o dopuštenosti zahteva za reviziju u pogledu preostalih pitanja, Sud smatra da je odbacivanje njegovog zahteva koji se odnosi na naknadu na osnovu rada u smenama bilo predvidivo i da on nije imao realne izglede za uspeh u tom pogledu. Imajući u vidu načela navedena u stavu 10. gore, Sud smatra da je obrazloženje Vrhovnog kasacionog suda bilo dovoljno da zadovolji zahteve iz člana 6. stav 1. (videti takođe Simone protiv Nemačke (odl.), broj 21853/23, st. 37–38, od 2. decembra 2025. godine).

13. Shodno tome, predstavka podnosioca je očigledno neosnovana, te se mora odbaciti u skladu sa članom 35. stav 3. Konvencije.

IZ OVIH RAZLOGA, SUD, JEDNOGLASNO,

Proglašava predstavku nedopuštenom.

Sastavljeno na engleskom jeziku i prosleđeno u pisanom obliku 1. oktobra 2026. godine.

Olga Chernishova

Zamenica sekretara

Peeter Roosma

Predsednik

THIRD SECTION

DECISION

Application no. 14157/23Dobrivoj KASAPOVIĆagainst Serbia

The European Court of Human Rights (Third Section), sitting on 8 September 2026 as a Committee composed of:

Peeter Roosma, President,

Úna Ní Raifeartaigh,

Mateja Đurović, judges,

and Olga Chernishova, Deputy Section Registrar,

Having regard to:

the application (no. 14157/23) against the Republic of Serbia lodged with the Court under Article 34 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (“the Convention”) on 14 March 2023 by a Serbian national, Mr Dobrivoj Kasapović (“the applicant”), who was born in 1960, lives in Bački Jarak and was represented by Mr N. Tadić, a lawyer practising in Novi Sad;

the decision to give notice of the complaints concerning the right of access to a court and the right to a fair hearing to the Serbian Government (“the Government”), represented by their Agent, Ms Z. Jadrijević Mladar, and to declare the remainder of the application inadmissible;

the parties’ observations;

Having deliberated, decides as follows:

SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CASE

1. The application concerns the applicant’s right to a reasoned judicial decision under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention and, in this context, his right of access to a court in civil proceedings relating to employment benefits.

2. On 2 March 2017 the Novi Sad District Court granted in part the applicant’s claims concerning remuneration under his employment contract (salary arrears, payment of overtime). The court dismissed the applicant’s claims for remuneration in part concerning shift work. The court discerned no evidence to support the applicant’s allegation that he had worked in shifts.

3. On 15 December 2017 the Novi Sad Court of Appeal upheld in part the judgment of 2 March 2017, reversing the lower court’s decision to grant the applicant’s claims for remuneration for having worked overtime.

4. The applicant applied for revision of the judgment of 15 December 2017 on points of law, challenging the Court of Appeal’s rejection of his claim for remuneration for overtime work and shift work. He also contested the first-instance court’s decision partly allowing two of his claims concerning the payment of the net earnings difference.

5. On 16 September 2020 the Supreme Court of Cassation, referring to Article 403 § 2 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act (Zakon o parničnom postupku), which set forth the conditions of admissibility of the complaints for revision, permitting such revision where the appellate court reversed the judgment given by lower court, ruled solely on the applicant’s claim concerning payment for overtime work. The Supreme Court rejected the request in this respect and did not address the remaining elements raised in the application for revision.

6. Subsequently, the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal, alleging a violation of his right to a fair trial, on the grounds that the Supreme Court of Cassation had failed to rule on all of his claims.

7. On 29 September 2022 the Constitutional Court rejected the constitutional appeal as being of a fourth-instance nature.

8. The applicant complained that the Supreme Court’s failure to examine his arguments concerning his entitlement to compensation for shift work had amounted to a breach of his rights under Article 6 § 1 of the Convention.

THE COURT’S ASSESSMENT

9. The Government contested the applicant’s allegations, arguing that, prior to the decision of the Supreme Court of Cassation, the courts of first and second instance had examined in detail all claims and appeals. The Government further maintained, referring to Article 403 of the Civil Procedure Act, that the Supreme Court of Cassation had acted within its jurisdiction and in accordance with the prescribed legal limitations on the admissibility of revision requests. They disagreed that the Supreme Court of Cassation had impaired the very essence of the applicant’s right of access to a court. Lastly, they opined that the applicant’s claims concerning work in shift had been, in any event, inadmissible ratione valoris, not having attained the statutory monetary threshold.

10. The Court reiterates that a superior court is not required to give more detailed reasoning when it simply applies a specific legal provision to dismiss an appeal on points of law as having no prospects of success, without further explanation (see Gorou v. Greece (no. 2) [GC], no. 12686/03, § 41, 20 March 2009, and Burg and Others v. France (dec.), no. 34763/02, 28 January 2003; see also general principles in Tsiolis v. Greece, no. 51774/17, §§ 61-62, 19 November 2024, with further references).

11. In the present case the Supreme Court of Cassation, albeit in a very succinct manner, ruled on the admissibility of the applicant’s request for revision. Admittedly, it limited itself to indicating that it will examine only the complaints concerning the reversal of the part of the judgment rendered by the Court of Appeal, relying on the relevant legal provisions. In the circumstances of the case, the Court accepts that the Supreme Court of Cassation sufficiently delineated the scope of its review and dismisses the applicant’s allegation that it failed to rule upon his grievances concerning the shift work that have not been examined by the Court of Appeal (see paragraph 5 above).

12. Regard being had to the above and in the absence of any reliance by the applicant on a provision of domestic law capable of supporting his assertion as to the admissibility of his request for revision on the remaining points, the Court considers that the dismissal of his claim concerning remuneration for shift work was foreseeable and that he had no realistic prospect of success in that respect. Recalling the principles summarised above in paragraph 10, the Court is satisfied that the Supreme Court of Cassation’s reasoning was sufficient to comply with the requirements of Article 6 § 1 (see also Simone v. Germany (dec.), no. 21853/23, § 37-38, 2 December 2025).

13. It follows that the applicants’ complaint is manifestly ill-founded and must therefore be dismissed pursuant to Article 35 § 3 of the Convention.

For these reasons, the Court, unanimously,

Declares the application inadmissible.

Done in English and notified in writing on 1 October 2026.

Olga Chernishova

Deputy Registrar

Peeter Roosma

President