Tomović: The Supreme Court has changed previously established negative case law

Dragan Hajduković's attorney, attorney Mladen Tomović, announced today that he welcomes the Supreme Court's decision, in which the court accepted the request for review of the court's decision regarding the awarding of the July Thirteenth Award, overturned the Administrative Court's decision and returned the case for retrial and decision-making.

"With its decision, the Supreme Court changed the previously established negative case law in the identical case of awarding state awards, which deprives participants of the right to effective judicial protection and legal remedy, and challenges the right to active standing, which is why today's decision of the Supreme Court is particularly significant and emphasizes the importance of decision-making in accordance with the practice of the European Court of Human Rights. In this sense, as the attorney for Mr. Hajduković, I welcome the decision of the Supreme Court, which confirmed the allegations we presented in the request for review of the court decision and the need for the Supreme Court, as the umbrella instance, to courageously and decisively change the negative court practices that existed in the previous period, paving the way for the lawful work of lower-instance courts, especially in the part of the Administrative Court's dismissal of lawsuits due to the applicant's lack of active standing and the strictly formalistic approach that directly jeopardized the constitutional and convention rights to legal remedy and effective protection before the court," Tomović told "Vijesti".

He added that "the aforementioned legal situations should not be viewed exclusively from a formalistic perspective, but also from the broader perspective of the existence of a justified interest in filing a lawsuit, which position should be decisive in terms of recognizing the status of a party and the active legal standing of the plaintiff in order to protect the public interest."

"In this specific case, there was not the slightest dilemma that the provisions of the Law on State Awards were drastically violated to the detriment of the plaintiff, and that the right to judicial protection in this case is indisputable," said Tomović.