Constitutional Court

KI40/18, Applicant, Hysen Idrizi, Constitutional review of Judgment Rev. No. 271/2017 of the Supreme Court of Kosovo, of 11 January 2018

KI40/18, Resolution on Inadmissibility of 28 May 2018, published on 12 June 2018

Key words: Individual referral, termination of employment, passive legitimacy, referral manifestly ill-founded

In 1991, the Applicant filed a claim with the Basic Court of Associated Labor in Prishtina for annulment of Decision of the P.E. “Elektroekonomia” for compensation of salaries for the period from 20 July 1991 until 15 July 1999. The Basic Court of Prishtina, by Judgment Cl. No. 103/2004, rejected the Applicant’s statement of claim for compensation of salaries, as it found that Kosovo Energy Corporation had no passive legitimacy regarding the Applicant’s claim for compensation of salaries for the abovementioned period, as it was not the successor of the P.E. “Elektroekonomia”. The findings of the Basic Court where confirmed by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.

The applicant alleged, before the Constitutional Court that the Supreme Court (Judgment Rev. No. 271/2017) violated his rights guaranteed by Articles 21 [General Principles], 31 [Right to Fair and Impartial Trial], 49 [ Right to Work and Exercise Profession] of the Constitution, Articles 13 (Right to an effective remedy) and 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) of the ECHR, Article 23 (1) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and Articles 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The Applicant claimed that that KEK is the indisputable legal successor of P.E. “Elektroekonomia” and has full passive legitimacy based on the fact that after 1999 he was reinstated to work with KEK without a vacancy based on the continuation of the employment relationship from the previous employment status. On the other hand, the Supreme Court concluded that KEK did not have the subject legitimacy in the concrete case because it did not dismiss the claimant from work, and accordingly it is not a participant of the material-legal relationship from which the dispute has arisen.

In addressing the allegations of the Applicant, the Constitutional Court noted that all arguments of the Applicant, which were relevant to the determination regarding the passive legitimacy of KEK in the present case, had been properly heard and examined by the courts. The regular courts also presented all the material and legal reasons related to the challenged decision. Therefore, the Court concludes that the proceedings before the Supreme Court, viewed in their entirety were fair. Thus, the Court declared the applicant’s referral inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded on constitutional based pursuant to Article 113 (1) and (7) of the Constitution, Articles 48 of the Law and Rules 36 (1) (d) and 36 (2) (d) of the Rules of Procedure.