[Bildnachweis: ICBUW. Srđan Aleksić Dritter von rechts, mit den ICBUW-Ko-Vorsitzenden Prof. Manfred Mohr und Ria Verjauw zu seiner Rechten (wie abgebildet)]

In a recent and most amazing judgment on 24 March 24 2025, the Basic Court in Pančevo, Serbia, ruled in favor of Karišik Zoran, a former soldier who developed lung cancer after alleged exposure to depleted uranium (DU) during the 1999 NATO bombing of the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FR Yugoslavia). Zoran was represented by ICBUW partner Dr. Srđan Aleksić and his legal team, with the support of Italian lawyer Angelo Fiore Tartaglia, who have spent both years fighting for victims of DU exposure (see our previous articles on Aleksić’s team’s work here and here ). The Pančevo court found the defendant Republic of Serbia liable for violating Zoran’s constitutional rights to life and a healthy environment due to its failure to take adequate preventive and remedial measures related to the presence of DU in affected areas. The court said: “…it is indisputably concluded that the defendant, by such inaction, violated the basic personal rights of the plaintiff, which is the right to life, or the right to a healthy life, which cannot be derogated even during wartime, as well as the right to a healthy environment, which by the use of depleted uranium munitions was certainly violated…”. Serbia was ordered to pay compensation for non-material damages to Zoran and to reimburse him the costs of the litigation. The case represents a significant step forward in recognizing the long-term consequences of warfare involving DU weapons.

Background 

Born in 1953, Zoran served in the FR Yugoslavia military during NATO’s bombing campaign in 1999, where he was stationed near Pančevo — an area heavily targeted by NATO. NATO used DU weapons in the bombings, releasing DU and other toxic and radioactive substances into the environment. Zoran tested that he was sent to Pančevo to retrieve materials shortly after the bombing. During the trip, he experienced coughing and breathing difficulties and argued these symptoms were due to the visible smoke, unusual smells, and thick atmospheric haze in the area, including inhalation of DU particles. He later developed serious health issues, including lung cancer which was diagnosed in 2016.

Parties‘ Arguments

Zoran’s legal representatives that NATO’s use of DU weapons posed significant health hazards due to their toxic and radioactive nature, and their ability to enter the human body through inhalation or ingestion. They argued Serbia bore responsibility for any damage, as it failed to undertake decontamination measures in the affected zones or issue public warnings about the dangers. This negligence constituted a breach of the Constitution of the Republic of Serbia , particularly Articles 24 and 74 on the rights to life and a healthy environment. The plaintiff referred to legal decisions and opinions from international forums, including judgments concerning DU exposure of the Italian State Council, the highest body of the Italian administrative judiciary. Serbia denied any liability and argued there was insufficient scientific evidence showing a direct causal link between Zoran’s cancer and his alleged exposure to DU. Also, the State claimed there was no verified evidence confirming the use of DU weapons in the Pančevo area, nor conclusive proof that Zoran had been exposed to radioactive materials. They further argued that Serbia could not be held accountable for damages resulting from military actions carried out by NATO forces, as it had no command over those operations. 

The State made three further arguments: that the court had a lack of territorial jurisdiction to decide the case, that Serbia had a passive lack of legitimacy relating to the conflict and therefore was not liable for any damage resulting from it, and that the statute of limitations barred Zoran from bringing the compensation claim.  

Evidence and Judgment 

After reviewing Zoran’s medical documentation and testimony, expert assessments from international medical professionals, scientific studies and technical reports from European institutions, and judicial decisions of other European states concerning DU weapons, Judge Vanja Tomić ruled in Zoran’s favor and made the following important conclusions:

• Causal Link was Sufficiently Demonstrated: Although direct scientific proof of causation was difficult, the court found that “…a causal link between military service performed by the plaintiff and the occurrence of the subject disease was established, for which the defendant is liable.” In particular: “…NATO forces … used munitions highly enriched with depleted uranium, and … particles of depleted uranium were inhaled by the plaintiff, and … the plaintiff’s exposure to the stated toxic pollution from the war led to the development of … lung carcinoma”. 

• State Violated Serbian Constitutional Rights: By failing to implement any protective or remedial measures in response to the contamination caused by the use of DU weapons, the Republic of Serbia breached its obligations under Articles 24 (right to life) and 74 (right to a healthy environment) of its Constitution. The court confirmed that these rights, guaranteed by the Serbian Constitution, cannot be derogated even during times of conflict.

• Court had Jurisdiction: The court held that Article 46 of the Law on Civil Procedure provides that, if a plaintiff lives in the territory where the court has jurisdiction (or the harmful act occurred in that area), that court will be able to resolve disputes relating to violations of personal rights, and therefore in this case the court was competent to resolve the dispute.  

• Republic of Serbia had Objective Liability for Damage: The court rejected the objection of passive lack of legitimacy, finding that Articles 173 and 174 of the Law on Obligations imposed objective liability on the Republic of Serbia for damage incurred during dangerous military activities. To avoid liability, the Republic of Serbia needed to show that it undertook all necessary actions to avoid the violation of Zoran’s personal rights, or otherwise that the damage occurred exclusively to unforeseeable or unpreventable events. 

• Claim was not Time-Barred: The court held that Article 376 of the Law on Obligations does not bar a plaintiff from bringing a compensation claim more than 3 years after they learn of the damage and the person responsible for it where the damage is non-material (for example, physical pain and fear). In this case, the court held that the limitation period started running from the moment Zoran completed treatment and realized the damage was chronic. Given that Zoran’s diagnosis occurred in 2016, but this only signed the beginning of years of surgery, chemotherapy and ongoing examinations, his claim was not time-barred.

The court also referred to Article 97 of the Serbian Constitution, which requires the State to take all protective measures in war and emergency situations to ensure the exercise and protection of the freedoms and rights of all Serbian citizens, and Article 2 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which also protects the right to life of every person by law. The court confirmed that the Serbian Constitution integrates generally accepted rules of international law into the Serbian legal system.

Implications

This case follows other important European decisions relating to the use of DU weapons. In 2004, a tribunal in Scotland (ia the impression of the expert opinion of the late German Professor of Chemistry Albrecht Schott) found in favor of Kenny Duncan, a former soldier who served in the Middle East, in his war pension appeal for his illness resulting from exposure to DU weapons. In 2019, an appeal court in France found that Henri Friconneau, a soldier, died as a result of the use of DU weapons in the FR Yugoslavia, which caused his illness (angiosarcoma), and therefore that his widow was entitled to compensation from the State. In Italy, Aleksić’s companion lawyer Angelo Tartaglia has successfully represented hundreds of individuals, including former Italian soldiers exposed to DU weapons and their families, leading to a multitude of favorable compensation court rulings ( read further here ). 

This decision reflects a growing recognition of the responsibilities of national governments to protect citizens, especially military people, from post-conflict environmental and health hazards, including those resulting from the use of DU weapons, and to live up to respective legal obligations. This trend will likely continue irrespective of any potential appeal of this case or its outcome. Recently, ICBUW has been in close contact with military DU victims in Austria and Romania, offering support in their fight to obtain justice. Later this year, we are planning to organize a special symposium on the issue to intensify cooperation and exchange.

For more on the case, see this interview with Aleksić published by the Global Times in June of last year. 

(Dominic Bilton/Manfred Mohr)