Constitutional Court

KI96/17, Applicant: Agron Çerreti, Constitutional review of Judgment ARJ-UZVP. No. 28/2017 of the Supreme Court of Kosovo, of 26 April 2017

 KI96/17, Resolution of 13 March 2018, published on 10 May 2018

Keywords: manifestly ill-founded referral, right to a fair and impartial trial

The Applicant was employed as a translator in the Basic Prosecution Office in Prizren. He was convicted of a criminal offense and when summoned to appear in prison for the purpose of serving the sentence, the Applicant requested from the Secretariat of the Employer’s Office a combination of annual leave, leave for work experience and unpaid leave. Following the approval of the annual leave and the refusal of unpaid leave by the Employer, the Applicant filed a new request for paid leave, claiming that he needed this leave in order to take care of his wife and children, but his request was rejected with the reasoning that it was false, because the Applicant was actually serving the imprisonment sentence.

As the Applicant did not appear at work, and did not even appear at the session of the Disciplinary Commission, even though he was invited, the Employer’s Disciplinary Commission terminated his employment relationship. Following the internal appeal procedures, the Applicant filed appeal to the regular courts, and his appeal proved unsuccessful. Finally, the Supreme Court reasoned that the termination of the employment relationship was made in accordance with the legal provisions.

The Applicant in the Constitutional Court inter alia, alleged that the Supreme Court violated the Constitution because it failed to take into account the fact that the Office of the Chief State Prosecutor was fully informed about the Applicant’s absence in order to serve his prison sentence.

The Court, by analyzing the allegations of the Applicant, recalled that it is not the task of the Constitutional Court to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly made by the regular courts.

Therefore, the Court finds that the Applicant has not submitted any prima facie evidence nor has he substantiated his allegations indicating how and why the Supreme Court has violated his rights to equality before the law and to a fair and impartial trial as guaranteed by the Constitution and the ECHR, and accordingly, declared the Referral admissible, because it was manifestly ill-founded on constitutional basis.