Constitutional Court

KI199/18, Constitutional review of Decision Rev. 317/2018 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kosovo, of 6 November 2018

KI199/18, Applicant Hajriz Haxholli

Resolution on Inadmissibility of 6 June 2019

Keywords: Individual referral, inadmissible revision, jubilee salary

The Applicant worked as a teacher in two primary schools in Kosovo and in August 2013 he was retired due to reaching the age of 65.

Upon termination of the employment relationship with the Education Directorate due to the retirement age, the Applicant initiated administrative and later the court proceedings in relation to compensation for the jubilee salaries for retirement. The Basic Court and the Court of Appeals rejected the request as ungrounded, mainly on the ground that there was no legal basis for obtaining such a right and that the Collective Contract to which the Applicant referred was not in force at the time of retirement of the Applicant. Whereas, the Supreme Court rejected the request for revision of the Applicant, based on Article 211 of the LCP, according to which the revision is not allowed for property-legal disputes in which the claim does not exceed the value of 3,000 euro.

Before the Constitutional Court, the Applicant challenges the aforementioned decision of the Supreme Court, alleging that the rejection of his request for revision as inadmissible violated his rights protected by Articles 3, 4, 21, 22, 23 , 24, 31 and 57 of the Constitution and the right guaranteed by Article 6 of the ECHR.

Referring to its case-law and that of the ECtHR, the Court reiterated and recalled that it is not the role of the Constitutional Court to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by the regular courts, when assessing the evidence or applying the law (legality), unless and insofar as they may have violated the rights and freedoms protected by the Constitution (constitutionality). It is the role of regular courts to interpret and apply the relevant rules of the procedural and substantive law.

The Court noted that the Supreme Court rejected the request for revision of the Applicant as “inadmissible” in the procedural aspect and without considering the merits of the Referral, based on the provisions of the LCP, according to which the request for revision should be declared inadmissible in cases where the value of the dispute is below € 3,000. The Court noted in that regard that the reasoning given in the Decision of the Supreme Court was clear, and after reviewing all the proceedings, the Court also found that the proceedings before the Court of Appeals and the Basic Court were not unfair or arbitrary.

In conclusion, in accordance with Rule 39 (2) of the Rules of Procedure, the Applicant’s Referral was declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded on constitutional basis.