Constitutional Court

KI63/18 – Constitutional review of Decision Rev. No.  7/2018 of the Supreme Court of Kosovo of 6 February 2018

KI63/18, Applicant Agim Grushti

Resolution on Inadmissibility of 6 June 2019, published on 10 July 2019

Keywords: Individual referral, inadmissible revision, jubilee salary

The Applicant worked at the University Clinical Center of Kosovo as “Responsible for substations and responsible for supervision and maintenance of generators”, until September 2014 when he was retired.

Upon the termination of the employment relationship with UCCK due to reaching the retirement age, the Applicant initiated the administrative and later court proceedings in relation to the compensation of two jubilee salaries and two accompanying salaries for retirement. The Basic Court and the Court of Appeals rejected his 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 his retirement. 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 permissible for legal-property disputes in which the statement of claim does not exceed the amount of 3,000 euro.

The Applicant challenges before the Court the final decision of the Supreme Court, claiming 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 Article 6 of the ECHR.

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 request, 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.

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.

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.