Constitutional Court

KI 159/17, Applicant Ismet Miftari, Request for constitutional review of Judgment Rev. No. 66/17 of the Supreme Court of 29 June 2017

 KI159 /17, Resolution on Inadmissibility of 10 April 2019, published on 20 May 2019

Keywords: Individual referral, civil procedure, general principles of the judicial system, adversarial principle, manifestly ill-founded

The Applicant had an employment contract with the Kosovo Energy Corporation (KEK) at the working place of “Chief Engineer of the project implementation in the boiler, in the Department of Power Plant Engineering (T. C.).
On 16 June 2011, by Decision No. 679 of the Arbitrator – the Executive Director of the Energy Generation Division of KEK, the Applicant was imposed the disciplinary measure “termination of the employment contract and this decision was also upheld by the decision of KEK Managing Director who rejected his appeal.
The Applicant against the disciplinary decisions of the employment agency initiated the court proceedings and the Basic Court on 24 November 2014 rejected the Applicant’s statement of claim. On 25 January 2017, the Court of Appeals rendered Judgment CA. No. 708/2015, by which it rejected as ungrounded the appeal, and upheld Judgment C. No. 1736/11 of the Basic Court, whereas on 29 June 2017, the Supreme Court, by Judgment Rev. No. 66/2017, decided to reject as ungrounded the request for revision of the Applicant.
According to the assessment of the Court after reviewing the Applicant’s allegations and the evidence presented in the Referral, the court decisions of the regular courts were reasoned, responded to the allegations raised by the Applicants and in the circumstances of the case, they  were not indicative of any constitutional violations. The Court in particular considered the allegation of a violation of the adversarial principle and taking into account the fact that the Applicant was an active part in all the proceedings conducted, either personally or through his authorized representative, found no evidence that the right to a trial was violated, therefore,  in accordance with Rule 39 (2) the Referral is to be declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded on constitutional basis.