Constitutional Court

The applicant, Mr. Fatmir Pireci, filed a Referral pursuant to Article 113.7 of the Constitution of Kosovo challenging the decision of the District Court of Prizren, Ac. no. 518/2010, as being taken in violation of his rights guaranteed by Article 21 [General Principles] and Article 49 [Right to Work and Exercise Profession] of the Constitution, since the District Court rejected the Applicant’s proposal for execution of the decision of the Independent Oversight Board. The decision of the IOB was a decision taken by an administrative body which had nothing to do with a monetary claim as is foreseen by the Law on Execution Procedure. Hence, the decision of the IOB was not a title for execution which the District Court should execute, but it was within the competences of the IOB, pursuant to UNMIK Regulation 2008/12, to execute its own decisions..
On the issue of the admissibility of the Referral, the Court held, based upon the plain language of Article 113.7 that the referral was admissible because in the present Referral Mr. Fatmir Pireci contests the constitutionality of Decision Ac. no. 518/2010 of the District Court in Prizren, dated 26 November 2010. Therefore, the Applicant must be considered as an authorized party, entitled to refer this case to the Court and to have exhausted all legal remedies as provided by law, pursuant to Article 113.7 of the Constitution. As to the requirement of Article 49 of the Law that the Applicant must have submitted the Referral within a period of four (4) months, the Court determines from the submissions of the Applicant that the Applicant was served with the above Decision of the District Court on 17 December 2010, while the Applicant submitted the Referral to the Court on 22 April 2011, i.e. within the four months time limit as provided by Article 49 of the Law. Further, the Applicant has set out in detail what rights under the Constitution and the ECHR have allegedly been violated and by what public authority. Hence, the Court also finds that the Applicant has fulfilled the requirement of Article 48 of the Law.
On the merits of the Referral, the Court held that, since the IOB had found a violation of the Applicant’s right to work, which decision had become final and executable, the Applicant had the right to an effective legal remedy, since the Municipality of Prizren refused to execute the IOB decision. However, as mentioned above, instead of executing the IOB decision, as was their legal duty, both the Municipal Court and District Court refused to do so. By failing to enforce the IOB Decision of 25 June 2008, the appropriate authorities have deprived the provisions of Article 54 of the Constitution and Article 13 of the ECHR of all useful effect. In these circumstances, the Court holds that the right to a fair and effective trial, as guaranteed by the Articles of the Constitution and ECHR, has been violated and that the final and executable decision of IOB, Decision No. 49/08 of 25 June 2008, must be executed. In reaching its decision, the Court also relied on the decisions of the Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights addressing the same or similar issue. The Court declared null and void the decision of the District Court and remanded the decision to the District Court for reconsideration in conformity with the judgment of this Court.