Constitutional Court

KI132/18, Applicant: Limak Kosovo International Airport J.S.C. “Adem Jashari”, Constitutional review of Judgment Rev. No. 118/2018 of the Supreme Court of Kosovo of 5 April 2018

KI132/18, Resolution of 20 June 2019, published on 12 July 2019

Keywords: individual referral, legal person, manifestly ill-founded,

The Applicant and the Government of the Republic of Kosovo signed a Public-Private Partnership Agreement (PPP), and based on this agreement the Applicant assumed an obligation to keep all employees in the employment relationship for another 3 (three) years.

Consequently, the Applicant concluded a new contract with the employee SH.D, who had worked since 2003 at the Prishtina International Airport. The Applicant had terminated the employment contract with the employee SH.D on the grounds that the probation period under the Employment Contract was terminated.

During the proceedings before the regular courts, the latter explained to the Applicant inter alia that the probation period for a job position with the employer is foreseen when the employment relationship is established for the first time, and in the case of the employee SH.D., she worked at the same working place for about 6 years. The regular courts reasoned that in the present case, the Applicant cannot use Article 15 of the Law on  nor Article 3 of the Employment Contract for the termination of the employment relationship of the employee SH.D. Finally, the Supreme Court of Kosovo assessed that the legal position of the first and second instance courts is admissible.

The Applicant, in his Referral to the Constitutional Court, alleges a violation of Article 31 of the Constitution due to an unreasoned decision as well as Articles 24, 32 and 46 of the Constitution and reiterated his allegations as before the regular courts.

The Constitutional Court, addressing the Applicant’s allegations, found that the latter failed to submit evidence, facts and arguments that the proceedings before the regular courts violated his right to fair and impartial trial, guaranteed by Article 31 of the Constitution, and the Court did not enter the examination of the Applicants’ further allegations because violations of the other rights guaranteed by Articles 24, 32 and 46 of the Constitution are alleged as a result of the violation of the right to fair and impartial trial.