Constitutional Court

KI 233/19 Applicant: Qaush Mulliqi, constitutional review of the Judgment AC-I-18-0162 of the Appellate Panel of the Special Chamber of the Supreme Court on Privatization Agency of Kosovo Related Matters, of 15 August 2019

KI233/19, Resolution on Inadmissibility of 29 July 2020, published on  27 August 2020

Keywords: individual referral, constitutional review of the challenged  judgment of the Special Chamber of the Supreme Court, manifestly ill-founded

The Referral is based on Article 113.7 of the Constitution, Articles 22 and 47 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Kosovo No.03/L-121 and Rule 32 of the Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court.

On 11 October 1991, the Applicant, by Decision no. 2331 of the Socially-Owned Enterprise Agricultural Industrial Combine IK „Dushan Mugosha” (hereinafter: SOE) from Peja, employment was terminated his employment relationship.

In November 1991, the Applicant filed a statement of claim  with the Basic Court of the Associated Labor in Gjakova against the Decision no. 2331 SOE requesting that this decision be annulled and that he be reinstated to his previous working place. This claim was later transferred to the Municipal Court in Peja.

On 19 July 2007, the Municipal Court in Peja, by Decision C.no. 741/07, terminated this procedure in respect of  the filed claim, because liquidation proceedings were initiated against the respondent, namely the SOE, which has been under the management of the Privatization Agency of Kosovo since June 8, 2007 (hereinafter: PAK).

In 2007, the said SOE entered the liquidation process, whereas on 3 September 2007, the Applicant submitted to the liquidation authority of the said SOE a request for the payment of unpaid salaries for the period from March 1991 to March 1999.

This court procedure was concluded with a final judgment of the Appellate Panel of the Supreme Court, by which the Applicant’s appeal was considered prescribed because the request for compensation of unpaid salaries was submitted in 2007, namely after the legal time-limit of 3 years.

The Court emphasizes that the Applicant does not in any way substantiate his allegations for  a violation of his rights. In fact, the Court points out that the Applicant did have an effective remedy at his disposal and that the failure to meet the deadlines for filing claims and appeals could in no way result in substantiated allegations for a violation of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

The Court finds that the Applicant has not sufficiently proved and substantiated the allegation that his rights protected by Article 32 [Right to Legal Remedies], and Article 54 [Judicial Protection of Rights] of the Constitution, have been violated.

Consequently, the Applicant’s Referral must be declared inadmissible on Constitutional basis as manifestly ill-founded pursuant to Rule 39 (2) of the Rules of Procedure.