Constitutional Court

KI37/20, Applicant: Limak Kosovo International Airport J.S.C.., “Adem Jashari”, Constitutional review of Judgment Rev. No. 297/2019, of the Supreme Court of Kosovo,  of 18 November 2019

KI37 / 20, Resolution on Inadmissibility, of 22 July 2020, published on 27 August 2020

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

On 12 August 2010, the Applicant and the Government of the Republic of Kosovo signed a Public Private Partnership Agreement (PPP), and based on this agreement, the Applicant was obliged to keep all employees in employment for another 3 (three) years.

After the expiration of this period, namely on 3 March 2014, the Applicant notified the employee I.A. that her employment contract will not be renewed.

The employee I.A. filed a lawsuit with the first instance court and her lawsuit was approved. On the other hand, the Applicant filed an appeal with the regular courts, alleging that the regular courts did not take into account Article 9.18 of the PPP Agreement, according to which the Applicant undertakes to keep the employees at work for another 3 (three) years.

During the proceedings before the regular courts, the latter clarified to the Applicant that since the employee I.A. had more than ten (10) years of work, according to Article 10.5 of the Law on Labor, it is considered as a contract for an indefinite period of time, so even for the termination of the employment contract, the legally defined procedures must be respected, the procedures, which according to the regular courts, were not respected by the Applicant.

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

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