Constitutional Court

KI36/18, Applicant: Limak Kosovo International Airport J.S.C. “Adem Jashari”, Constitutional review of Judgment Rev. No. 98/2017 of the Supreme Court of Kosovo of 19 October 2017

KI36/18, Resolution on Inadmissibility of 20 June 2019, published on 23 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 had an obligation to keep all employees in employment relationship for another 3 (three) years.

Accordingly, the Applicant notified the employee N.D. that his employment contract will not be renewed. The employee N.D. filed a claim with the first instance court and his claim was approved. On the other hand, the Applicant alleged before the regular courts that the regular courts failed to take into account Article 9.18 of the PPP Agreement, according to which the Applicant was obliged to keep the employees at work  for 3 (three years.

During the proceedings before the regular courts, the latter clarified to the Applicant that, based on Article 10.5 of the General Collective Agreement of Kosovo (GCAK), a fixed-term contract is considered to be an indefinite term contract if the employee worked without interruption over three years and in this case the employee N.D. worked for four years without interruption, and before terminating the employment relationship, the Applicant should have initiated an internal procedure for termination of the employment relationship.

The Applicant, in his Referral before the Constitutional Court, alleges a violation of Article 31 of the Constitution due to an unreasoned decision as well as Articles 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 indicating 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 the violations of other rights guaranteed by Articles 32 and 46 of the Constitution are alleged as a result of the violation of the right to fair and impartial trial.