Constitutional Court

KI10/19 Applicant: Besarta Maloku, constitutional review of Judgment Rev. No. 326/18 of the Supreme Court of 9 November 2018

KI10/19 Resolution on Inadmissibility, of 10 September 2019, published on 08.10.2019

Keywords: Individual referral, civil dispute, manifestly ill-founded referral, inadmissible referral

The Applicant challenged before the Court the constitutionality of Judgment Rev. No. 326/18 of the Supreme Court of 9 November 2018, by which the Supreme Court allegedly violated her rights protected by Articles 22, 31 and 53 of the Constitution, because the latter has erroneously interpreted the provisions of the Administrative Instruction No. 14/2011 regulating procedures for establishment of employment in the public sector.

The Court, after the assessment and consideration of the Applicant’s allegations found that the Applicant’s allegations relate to the manner the Supreme Court in her case has interpreted the relevant legal and sublegal provisions, therefore, based on this, the Court considers that the same raise, in fact, questions of law (legality) which fall within the domain of regular courts and not of the Constitutional Court. As a result, the Court considers that the Applicant, on constitutional basis, did not substantiate her allegations that the relevant proceedings were in any way unfair or arbitrary and that the challenged Judgment violated her rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and Convention. (See, mutatis mutandis, Shub v. Lithuania, no. 17064/06, ECtHR, Decision of 30 June 2009). In conclusion, the Court in accordance with Rule 39 (2) of the Rules of Procedure declared the Referral inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded.