Constitutional Court

The Applicants submitted the Referral based on the Article 113.7 of the Constitution, alleging that there was a serious violation of their fundamental constitutional right on employment. The Referral does not go into greater detail, In their responses the Ministry maintained that the Applicants are not and had never been employees of the Ministry and that there were no notes, evidence, documents or facts in the Ministry that prove that the Applicants were employees, nor that there were employment contracts for any of them, In this case, the Court referred to Article 48 of the Law on Constitutional Court and the Rule 36.2 item b) and d) of the Rules of Procedure that provide that b) when the presented facts do not in any way justify the allegation of a violation of the constitutional rights, or d) when the Applicant does not sufficiently substantiate his claim”, The Court came into conclusion that the Applicants did not substantiate by evidence their allegations in regular courts that they were employees of the Ministry, neither did they provide sufficient or any evidence to the Constitutional Court that would indicate that the Judgment of the Supreme Court was in error. As it was stated by the Constitutional Court in the Case No.KI.06/09, the Applicant X against the Judgment of Supreme Court No. 215/2006; the Judgment of the District Court No. 741/2005, and the Judgment of the Municipal Court No. 217/2004