From this brief legal analysis, it is clear that the effect of the judgment of the European Court has to be extended in such a way to allow reopening of the proceedings to each case where a person in the same or similar factual and legal situation seeks revisiting of the case. Any other solution would run contrary to the aim of the European Convention and other Council of Europe legislation. Thus, it would seriously prevent persons whose human rights have been violated by Serbian national courts from to obtain restitutio in integrum only because they did not initiate proceedings before the Court in Strasbourg.
Keeping in mind the growing tendency of turning to the European Court and raising the awareness of the obligation to implement the opinions of the European Court, it is to be expected to use more the possibility to reopen a proceeding on the ground of the European Court case-law in the future. For this reason, it is paramount for Serbian courts to adopt a unified stand in this regard.
In any case, reopening of the civil procedure based on this legal ground requires a profound understanding of human rights issues, and it is paramount for a client to be represented by a human right lawyer before the court.
 Supreme Court Bulletin 3/2011, page 13-26.
 V. Boranijašević, Povrede ljudskih prava i osnovnih sloboda kao razlog za ponavljanje parničnog postupka, Zb. Prav. fak. Rij. (1991) v. 32, br. 1, 511-526 (2011), page 515.