BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
European Court of Human Rights |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> European Court of Human Rights >> Andelkovic v. Serbia - 1401/08 - Legal Summary [2013] ECHR 478 (09 April 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/2013/478.html Cite as: [2013] ECHR 478 |
||
[New search] [Contents list] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
Information Note on the Court’s case-law No. 162
April 2013
Anđelković v. Serbia - 1401/08
Judgment 9.4.2013 [Section II]
Article 6
Civil proceedings
Article 6-1
Fair hearing
Arbitrary domestic decision amounting to denial of justice: violation
Facts - In 2004 the applicant instituted civil proceedings against his employer, who was in financial difficulty, for outstanding holiday pay. The applicant’s claim was granted at first instance in line with the applicable labour law and collective agreements, but the judgment was reversed on appeal on the grounds that accepting the applicant’s claim would have resulted in the applicant being treated more favourably than the employer’s other employees, none of whom had received outstanding holiday pay.
Law - Article 6 § 1: The Court reiterated that the question of the interpretation of domestic law lay primarily with the national courts and it would intervene only when those courts in a particular case applied the law manifestly erroneously or so as to reach an arbitrary conclusion. In the applicant’s case the domestic law had clearly provided for instances in which employees were entitled to holiday pay. Having established the relevant facts, the first-instance court had found that the applicant was entitled to the payments. However, the appellate court had overturned that judgment without a single reference to the labour law or the facts as established at first instance. Nor had it explained what the law was or how it should be applied in the applicant’s case. In fact, the reasoning of the appellate court had no legal foundation and was based on an abstract assertion falling outside any reasonable judicial discretion. In conclusion, the arbitrary ruling of the appellate court in the applicant’s case had amounted to a denial of justice and violated his right to a fair hearing.
Conclusion: violation (unanimously).
(See also De Moor v. Belgium, no. 16997/90, 23 June 1994; and Barac and Others v. Montenegro, no. 47974/06, 13 December 2011)
