Resolution

Constitutional review of Decision Rev. No. 225/2017 of the Supreme Court of 15 November 2017

Case No. KI 22/18

Download:
Summary

KI22/18, Applicant: Enver Pllana, constitutional review of Decision Rev. No. 225/2017 of the Supreme Court of 15 November 2017

KI22/18, Resolution on Inadmissibility of 27 February 2019, published on 26 March 2019

Keywords: individual referral, constitutional review of the decision of the Supreme Court of Kosovo, manifestly ill-founded

The Applicant submitted the Referral based on Article 113.7 of the Constitution, Article 47 of the Law No. 03/L-121 on Constitutional Court of the Republic of Kosovo and Rule 32 of the Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Kosovo.

On two occasions, the Applicant tried by claims, in 2001 and 2005, before the regular courts to realize his rights from the employment relationship, claiming that in the process of returning the workers to previous working positions, the employer did not act in accordance with the applicable law in his case. In both cases, the regular courts rejected the Applicant’s claims for procedural reasons, that is, in the first case, because the claim was not supplemented and specified, as it was required by the Basic Court from the Applicant, and in the second case, becuase the claim was filed out of the legally prescribed time limit.

In his Referral before the Court, the Applicant did not clearly indicate what rights and freedoms he claims to have been violated by an act of a public authority which he challenged before the Court, namely by the decision of the Supreme Court. Moreover, the Applicant does not accurately present the facts and allegations of violation of the constitutional rights.

Accordingly, in the circumstances of this case, the Applicant’s Referral is in accordance with the requirements established in paragraphs 1 and 7 of Article 113 of the Constitution and Articles 47 and 49 of the Law. However, the Applicant’s Referral does not meet the admissibility requirements as foreseen by Article 48 of the Law and item (d) of paragraph (1) of Rule 39 of the Rules of Procedure.

Therefore, the Court declared the Applicant’s Referral inadmissible because it does not meet the admissibility requirements as established in Article 48 of the Law and item (d) of paragraph (1) of Rule 39 of the Rules of Procedure.

Applicant:

Enver Pllana

Type of Referral:

KI – Individual Referral

Type of act:

Resolution

Type of procedure followed before other institutions :

Administrative