6.  The applicants were all employees of the Ministry of Justice’s directorate for the execution of criminal sanctions in Serbia. Because of the hardships prison staff endure during service at penal institutions in Serbia, Serbian law provides that they are eligible for certain employment benefits, such as benefits concerning the calculation of their old-age pensions and salary increases. 7.  In general, pension and work-related issues in Serbia are regulated by two laws: 1) the Old-Age Pension and Disability Insurance Act (Zakon o penzionom i invalidskom osiguranju, published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia no. 34/2003, as amended); and 2) the Labour Act (Zakon o radu, published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia no. 24/2005, as amended). However, in regards to employees of correctional facilities, pension and work-related issues are also regulated by: 1) the Execution of Criminal Sanctions Act (Zakon o izvršenju krivičnih sankcija, published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia -OG RS- no. 85/2005, amendments published in the Official Gazette no. 72/2009); and 2) the Directive on personal coefficients for the calculation and payment of salaries to individuals employed within the Ministry of Justice’s directorate for the execution of criminal sanctions (Uredba o koeficijentima za obračun i isplatu plata u Upravi za izvršenje krivičnih sankcija, published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia -OG RS- no. 16/2007, amendments published in the Official Gazette nos. 21/2009, 1/2011 – Constitutional Court decision (implementing decision of the Constitutional Court of 18 November 2010), 83/2011 and 102/2011 – hereinafter “the Directive”). 8.  Under Article 262 of the Execution of Criminal Sanctions Act, the director and other employees of the directorate for the execution of criminal sanctions are entitled to an accelerated accumulation of pension rights: this means that twelve months of full-time employment is counted as sixteen months of full-time employment in the civilian economy when their old-age pensions are calculated. Also, the personal coefficient of employees in correctional facilities may, according to the said Article, be increased by up to 30%. The posts to which the accelerated accumulation of pension rights applies are determined by the minister responsible for the judiciary and the minister responsible for pension and disability insurance. 9.  In accordance with Article 7 § 3 of the Directive, in the period between 1 January 2007 and 14 January 2011 the personal coefficients of the applicants and their colleagues were increased by 10% instead of 30% as provided by the Execution of Criminal Sanctions Act. 10.  On 18 November 2010, the Constitutional Court adopted a decision (no. IU 63/2007) stating that Article 7 § 3 of the Directive was unconstitutional. The said Article was struck down. The amendments to the Directive entered into force on 14 January 2011. As of 14 January 2011 the personal coefficients were increased by 30%. 11.  Between 1 January 2007 and 14 January 2011, while this unconstitutional norm (neustavna odredba) was in force, the employees of the Ministry of Justice’s directorate for the execution of criminal sanctions received lower salaries that they had been entitled to. For that reason, their old-age pensions were also reduced. 12.  Throughout 2011, 2012 and 2013 the applicants, as well as many of their colleagues, lodged with various courts of first instance (osnovni sudovi) separate civil claims against the Republic of Serbia, asking for compensation for the damage caused while the four-year-long unconstitutional norm pertained. 13.  Some of the courts of first instance upheld the claimants’ applications for compensation, while others dismissed them. Decisions of the courts of first instance were appealed against either by claimants or the defendant. 14.  Certain claimants were successful before the courts of appeal; yet all the applicants were unsuccessful. In particular, the applicants’ complaints were rejected by the courts of appeal in Belgrade and Kragujevac for the applicants’ failure to pursue the proper avenue of redress. In the view of these courts the applicants should have first initiated administrative proceedings and afterwards lodged a complaint with the civil courts. In any event, the Belgrade and Kragujevac Courts of Appeal also held that they did not have jurisdiction to decide on the applicants’ cases. 15.  In contrast, in the following cases other courts of appeal or chambers thereof ruled in favour of the applicants’ colleagues:
1) The Kragujevac Court of Appeal (for example: decisions nos. Gž1. 43/11 of 15 March 2011 and Gž1. 3034/14 of 2 October 2014);
2) The Niš Court of Appeal (for example: Gž1. 2444/13 of 27 December 2013);
3) The Novi Sad Court of Appeal (for example: Gž1. 3549/13 of 24 December 2013 and Gž1. 2379/14 of 7 November 2014). 16.  In the above-mentioned decisions the courts of appeal upheld the claimants’ requests, stating that the applicants’ colleagues should be paid the differences in their salaries together with interest on the unpaid amounts, and the contributions in respect of the their old-age pensions, for the period during the which unconstitutional norm had been applied.
(b)  Decision of the Supreme Court of Cassation (Vrhovni kasacioni sud) no. Rev.2 393/2013 of 26 September 2013 17.  Given the differences in adjudication on the matter, on 27 March 2013 the Novi Sad Court of Appeal requested, in accordance with Article 395 of the Civil Procedure Act (Zakon o parničnom postupku, published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Serbia – OG RS – 125/04 and 111/2009), that the Supreme Court of Cassation amend its judgment no. Gž1-2352/12 of 12 December 2012 and harmonise the case-law of the courts of appeal in matters concerning the payment of the differences between the salaries claimants had received and those they had been entitled to. 18.  On 26 September 2013, in response to the said request, the Supreme Court of Cassation found, acting in accordance with Articles 395 and 399 of the Civil Procedure Act, that there was an interest of general concern to deal with this issue. It held that the Novi Sad Court of Appeal in delivering the judgment of 12 December 2012 had incorrectly applied and interpreted domestic law. The Supreme Court of Cassation held that the judgment should have been rendered in the claimant’s favour and, accordingly, set the judgment of the Novi Sad Court of Appeal aside. 19.  After the impugned decision, the Courts of Appeal in Novi Sad, Niš and Kragujevac assumed the following approach:
“... as the Supreme Court of Cassation explicitly stated in its decisions nos. Rev. 2 br. 393/2013 of 26 September 2013 and Rev. br. 983/2012 of 26 September 2013, State organs [were engaging in what had to be considered] unlawful work, as the Constitutional Court failed to adopt a decision [regarding] in which manner the consequences of the unconstitutional norm should have been overcome[, and] the Government of the Republic of Serbia, as the regulatory authority, within the scope of their jurisdiction did not secure the execution of the impugned decision of the Constitutional Court concerning the disputed period during which the claimant’s salary was unconstitutionally and illegally reduced, the claimant had a right to lodge a claim for compensation for damage with the civil courts, and the civil courts are in charge of deciding on the matter in accordance with Article 1 of the Civil Procedure Act.” (cited from the judgment no. Gž1. 2444/13 of 27 December 2013, p. 4)
(c)  Decisions of the Constitutional Court 20.  In the period between 26 September 2012 and 13 May 2014 the applicants appealed to the Constitutional Court. 21.  They complained, inter alia, of the inconsistent domestic case-law of the Serbian courts which had caused the rejection of their claims and the simultaneous acceptance of identical claims lodged by their colleagues. Relying on Article 6 of the Convention or Articles 32 and 36 of the Constitution (provisions that correspond to Article 6 of the Convention) the applicants asked the Constitutional Court to find that there had been a breach of the principle of legal certainty as an integral part of the right to a fair trial. 22.  Between 23 October 2014 and 25 March 2015, the Constitutional Court rejected the applicants’ constitutional appeals as unsubstantiated. 23.  The facts relating to each applicant may be summarised as follows:
(a)  As regards application no. 27471/15 (Ms Aleksandra Mirković – the first applicant) 25.  On 20 December 2011 she lodged a civil claim with the First Basic Court (Prvi opštinski sud) in Belgrade asking for payment of the difference between the salary she had received and the one she had been entitled to. 26.  On 3 June 2013 the first-instance court rejected her claim. On 3 October 2013 the Belgrade Court of Appeal upheld that judgment following an appeal by the applicant. 27.  The applicant lodged a constitutional appeal on 25 November 2013 complaining, inter alia, of the existence of inconsistent domestic case-law of Serbian courts, in particular the rejection of her own claim and the simultaneous acceptance of identical claims lodged by her colleagues, and asked the Constitutional Court to find that there had been a breach of the principle of judicial certainty as an integral part of her right to a fair trial. She provided the Constitutional Court with copies of several judgments in support of her allegation regarding the inconsistent case-law. 28.  On 12 June 2014 she provided the Constitutional Court with the decision of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 26 September 2013. 29.  On 23 October 2014 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s constitutional appeal and decided not to evaluate the decision of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 26 September 2013 because it had been adopted after the judgment of the Belgrade Court of Appeal of 3 October 2013 had been adopted in the applicant’s case (Ustavni sud nije posebno cenio imajući u vidu da ona potiče iz perioda nakon donošenja osporene presude Apelacionog suda u Beogradu GŽ1 556/13 od 3. oktobra 2013. godine.)
(b)  As regards application no. 27288/15 (Ms Biljana Sarić – the second applicant) 30.  At the relevant time, the second applicant was an employee of Belgrade Special Prison Hospital. On 20 December 2011 she lodged a civil claim with the First Basic Court in Belgrade. Her complaint was rejected on 8 February 2013. The judgment of the first-instance court was upheld by the Belgrade Court of Appeal on 15 May 2013. 31.  On 24 July 2013 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal. She amended her appeal following the decision of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 26 September 2013 on 12 June 2014. 32.  On 23 October 2014 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s constitutional appeal for the same reason as in the case of the first applicant.
(c)  As regards application no. 27751/15 (Ms Sanja Popović-Radivojeviċ – the third applicant) 33.  At the relevant time, the third applicant was an employee of Juvenile Detention Centre (Kazneno-popravni zavod za maloletnike) in Valjevo. On an unspecified date in 2011, she lodged a civil claim with the Basic Court in Valjevo. On 16 March 2012 the Basic Court ruled in her favour. This judgment was overturned by the Belgrade Court of Appeal on 15 August 2012. 34.  On 26 September 2012 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal. She provided the Constitutional Court with the copy of one relevant judgment in which the Kragujevac Court of Appeal had accepted a similar claim to her own. 35.  On 23 October 2014 the Constitutional Court rejected her appeal for failure to adequately substantiate her complaint. In particular it held that one relevant judgment submitted by the applicant could not amount to proof of either profound or long-standing differences in the adjudication of the courts’ ruling at final instance in cases similar to the applicant’s.
(d)  As regards application no. 27779/15 (Mr Branislav Marković – the fourth applicant) 36.  At the relevant time, the fourth applicant was an employee of the prison in Požarevac-Zabela (Kazneno-popravni zavod Požarevac-Zabela). On 14 July 2011, the applicant lodged a civil claim with the Basic Court in Požarevac. On 8 February 2012 the Basic Court ruled in his favour. This judgment was overturned by Belgrade Court of Appeal on 29 August 2012. 37.  On 13 November 2012 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal, alleging a violation of his right to a fair trial. He failed to provide the Constitutional Court with copies of any of the judgments in which the civil courts had allegedly accepted claims similar to his own. 38.  On 23 October 2014 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s constitutional appeal as unsubstantiated.
(e)  As regards application no. 27790/15 (Ms Milica Bogićević – the fifth applicant) 39.  At the relevant time, the fifth applicant was an employee of Belgrade Special Prison Hospital. On 20 December 2011, the applicant lodged a civil claim with the First Basic Court in Belgrade. On 23 January 2013 the First Basic Court ruled in her favour. This judgment was overturned by Belgrade Court of Appeal on 19 March 2014. 40.  On 13 May 2014 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal. She provided the Constitutional court with the copy of one relevant judgment in which the Novi Sad Court of Appeal had accepted a claim similar to her own. 41.  On 23 October 2014 the Constitutional Court rejected her appeal for the same reason as in the case of the third applicant.
(f)  As regards application no. 27288/15 (Ms Gordana Maslovarić – the sixth applicant) 42.  At the relevant time, the sixth applicant was an employee of Belgrade Special Prison Hospital. On 20 December 2011 she lodged a civil claim with the First Basic Court in Belgrade. Her complaint was rejected on 25 December 2012. The judgment of the first-instance court was upheld by the Belgrade Court of Appeal on 20 March 2013. 43.  On 17 May 2013 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal. She amended her appeal following the decision of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 26 September 2013 on 12 June 2014. 44.  On 30 October 2014 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s constitutional appeal for the same reason as in the case of the first applicant.
(g)  As regards application no. 28418/15 (Mr Velimir Vidić – the seventh applicant) 45.  At the relevant time, the seventh applicant was an employee of Penitentiary institution in Belgrade-Padinska Skela (Kazneno-popravni zavod u Beogradu – Padinska Skela) and the prison in Požarevac-Zabela. On 30 November 2011 he lodged a civil claim with the First Basic Court in Belgrade. His complaint was rejected on 3 December 2012. The judgment of the first-instance court was upheld by the Belgrade Court of Appeal on 1 March 2013. 46.  On 16 May 2013 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal. He amended his appeal following the decision of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 26 September 2013 on 21 March 2014. 47.  On 23 October 2014 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s constitutional appeal for the same reason as in the case of the first applicant.
(h)  As regards application no. 30893/15 (Mr Nebojša Nejković – the eighth applicant) 48.  At the relevant time, the eighth applicant was an employee of the prison in Požarevac-Zabela. On an unspecified date in 2013 he lodged a civil claim with the Basic Court in Požarevac. His complaint was rejected on 21 August 2013. The judgment of the first-instance court was upheld by the Belgrade Court of Appeal on 30 October 2013. 49.  On 10 December 2013 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal. He amended his appeal following the decision of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 26 September 2013 on 27 February 2014. 50.  On 13 November 2014 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s constitutional appeal for the same reason as in the case of the first applicant.
(i)  As regards application no. 30906/15 (Ms Aleksandra Pešić – the ninth applicant; and Ms Jelena Jevremović – the tenth applicant) 51.  At the relevant time, the ninth and the tenth applicants were employees of Penitentiary institution in Požarevac (Kazneno-popravni zavod za žene). On an unspecified date in 2011, the applicants lodged a joint civil claim with the Basic Court in Požarevac. On 13 January 2012 the Basic Court ruled in their favour. This judgment was overturned by Belgrade Court of Appeal on 4 April 2013. 52.  On 21 May 2013 the applicants lodged a constitutional appeal. They amended the appeal following the decision of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 26 September 2013 on 27 February 2014. 53.  On 23 October 2014 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicants’ constitutional appeal for the same reason as in the case of the first applicant.
(j)  As regards application no. 32933/15
(i)  Mr Željko Gradiška – the eleventh applicant 54.  At the relevant time, the eleventh applicant was an employee of the women’s prison in Požarevac. On an unspecified date in 2011, the applicant lodged a civil claim with the Basic Court in Požarevac. On 24 February 2012 the Basic Court ruled in his favour. This judgment was overturned by Belgrade Court of Appeal on 16 October 2013. 55.  On 10 December 2013 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal. He subsequently amended the appeal with the decision of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 26 September 2013. 56.  On 23 October 2014 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s constitutional appeal because in its view the decision of the Supreme Court of Cassation could not have been considered as proof of inconsistent case-law of courts ruling at final instance (revizijsko rešenje ne može biti dokaz o različitom postupanju sudova najviše instance).
(ii)  Mr Milan Vučićević – the twelfth applicant 57.  At the relevant time, the twelfth applicant was an employee of the prison in Požarevac-Zabela. On an unspecified date in 2012, the applicant lodged a civil claim with the Basic Court in Požarevac. His complaint was rejected on 2 October 2012. The judgment of the first-instance court was upheld by the Belgrade Court of Appeal on 22 November 2012. 58.  On 15 January 2013 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal. He failed to provide the Constitutional Court with copies of any of the judgments in which the civil courts at final instance had allegedly accepted claims similar to his own. 59.  On 23 March 2015 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s constitutional appeal as unsubstantiated. The Constitutional Court failed to separately address his complaint concerning the divergent case-law.
(iii)  Mr Draško Veljković – the thirteenth applicant 60.  At the relevant time, the thirteenth applicant was an employee of Kraljevo District Prison (Okružni zatvor u Kraljevu). On an unspecified date in 2011, the applicant lodged a civil claim with the Basic Court in Kraljevo. On 23 December 2011 the Basic Court ruled in his favour. This judgment was overturned by Kragujevac Court of Appeal on 12 March 2013. 61.  On 13 May 2013 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal. On several occasions, between 30 December 2013 and 19 August 2014, he amended the appeal, adding copies of a few other judgments in which the civil courts at final instance had accepted claims similar to his own, and adding the decision of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 26 September 2013. 62.  On 23 October 2014 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s constitutional appeal for the same reason as in the case of the first applicant.
(k)  As regards application no. 35780/15 (Ms Branislava Stojanović – the fourteenth applicant) 63.  At the relevant time, the fourteenth applicant was an employee of the women’s prison in Požarevac. On an unspecified date in 2012 she lodged a civil claim with the Basic Court in Požarevac. Her complaint was rejected on 22 May 2012. The judgment of the first-instance court was upheld by the Belgrade Court of Appeal on 13 September 2012. 64.  On 22 October 2012 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal. She subsequently amended the appeal following the decision of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 26 September 2013. 65.  On 29 January 2015 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s constitutional appeal for the same reason as in the case of the first applicant.
(l)  As regards application no. 40646 (Ms Nevenka Bijelić – the fifteenth applicant; Ms Vesna Vulević – the sixteenth applicant; and Ms Zorica Jovanović – the seventeenth applicant) 66.  At the relevant time, the fifteenth, the sixteenth and the seventeenth applicants were employees of the women’s prison in Požarevac. On an unspecified date in 2012, the applicants lodged a joint civil claim with the Basic Court in Požarevac. Their complaint was rejected on 29 May 2013. The judgment of the first-instance court was upheld by the Belgrade Court of Appeal on 11 September 2013. 67.  On 16 October 2013 the applicants lodged a constitutional appeal. They subsequently amended the appeal, adding copies of a few other judgments in which the civil courts ruling at final instance had accepted claims similar to their own, and adding the decision of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 26 September 2013. 68.  On 11 February 2015 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicants’ constitutional appeal for the same reason as in the case of the first applicant.
(m)  As regards application no. 55066/15 (Mr Dejan Stepanović – the eighteenth applicant) 69.  At the relevant time, the eighteenth applicant was an employee of Belgrade Special Prison Hospital. On 20 December 2011 he lodged a civil claim with the First Basic Court in Belgrade. His complaint was rejected on 26 February 2013. The judgment of the first-instance court was upheld by the Belgrade Court of Appeal on 5 June 2013. 70.  On 5 August 2013 the applicant lodged a constitutional appeal. He amended his appeal following the decision of the Supreme Court of Cassation of 26 September 2013 on 12 June 2014. 71.  On 25 March 2015 the Constitutional Court rejected the applicant’s constitutional appeal for the same reason as in the case of the first applicant.