Constitutional Court

KI83/17, Applicant: Blerim Rudi, Request for constitutional review of non-execution of Decision A. no. 02/371/2013/R of the Independent Oversight Board for Civil Service of Kosovo, of 11 November 2013 and Decision AC. No. 1339/2016, of the Court of Appeals of 20 April 2017 by the Financial Intelligence Unit

 KI83/17, Resolution on Inadmissibility, of 16 March 2018, published on 2 May 2018

Keywords: Individual referral, right to fair and impartial trial, right to legal remedies, the principle of subsidiarity.

On 20 April 2017, the Court of Appeals of Kosovo by Decision Ac. No. 1339/2016, rejected the appeal of the Financial Intelligence Unit and upheld Decision PPP. No. 1827/2013 of the Basic Court, of 25 February 2016, based on which the execution was assigned against the debtor, the Financial Intelligence Unit, obliging the debtor to reinstate the Applicant to the working place with the Financial Intelligence Unit, with all the rights of the employment relationship.

The Applicant alleges that as a result of the non-execution of Decision A. No. 02/371/2013/R of the Independent Oversight Board for Civil Service of Kosovo, of 11 November 2013 and of Decision AC. No. 1339/2016 of the Court of Appeals of 20 April 2017, the Financial Intelligence Unit violated his the rights guaranteed by Articles 31 [Right to Fair and Impartial Trial], 32 [Right to Legal Remedies] and 54 [Judicial Protection of Rights] of the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo and Article 6 (Right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

On 17 August 2017, the Applicant and the Financial Intelligence Unit reached the reconciliation, based on which the Applicant is reinstated to the working place in the position of the “Intelligence Analyst”.

The Applicant, upon reaching the reconciliation with the Financial Intelligence Unit, based on which the Applicant was reinstated to work, essentially alleges that the Financial Intelligence Unit has partially implemented the IOBCSK Decision, A. No. 02/371/2013/R of 11 November 2013 and Decision No. 1339/2016 of the Court of Appeals of 20 April 2017. The Applicant states that he has returned to the workplace, but the abovementioned decisions have not been fully implemented in respect of the retroactive compensation part of the salaries.

The Court concluded that with regard to the Applicant’s allegation of retroactive payment of salaries, the Applicant has not exhausted all legal remedies provided by law.