Constitutional Court

The Applicant filed a Referral pursuant to Article 113.7 of the Constitution, asserting that his rights under Articles 23, 24 and 49 of the Constitution, as well as Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, were infringed by a judgment of the Supreme Court, which reversed decisions of the lower courts and rejected the Applicant’s claim that his employment was terminated in violation of law and the applicable collective bargaining contract, The Applicant argued that the judgment of the Supreme Court was unjust because it erroneously applied the law when deciding that his employer had acted fairly, The Court concluded that the Referral was admissible because the Applicant had exhausted all legal remedies pursuant to Article 113.7, complied with Article 48 of the Law on the Constitutional Court (“Law”) by specifying the particular rights and freedoms that were allegedly violated, and submitted the Referral within the 4-month deadline mandated by Article 49 of the Law, The Court noted that its discretion was limited to disposing of allegations of Constitutional violations, such as whether the Applicant had received a fair trial, as opposed to resolving other legal or factual disputes, citing Garcia Ruiz v. Spain, Case of Sevdail Avdyli and Edwards v. United Kingdom. The Court held that the Applicant had failed to prove that the Supreme Court proceedings had deprived him of an effective remedy, or that the Supreme Court’s judgment was unjust or arbitrary, citing Vanek v. Slovak Republic. In addition, the Court held that the Applicant was unable to prove that his Constitutional rights were affected by a breach of the Constitution. Accordingly, the Court issued a judgment reflecting that there was no Constitutional violation as alleged by the Applicant