Constitutional Court

KI26/20, Applicant: Fatmir Kahrimani, Constitutional review of Decision Rev. No. 234/2019 of the Supreme Court of Kosovo of 22 August 2019

KI26/20, Resolution on Inadmissibility, adopted on 30 September 2020, published on 13 October 2020

Keywords: individual referral, labor dispute, manifestly ill-founded referral, inadmissible referral

The Referral is submitted by Fatmir Kahrimani from the Municipality of Peja, represented by Lulzim Balaj, a lawyer from Peja.

The Applicant challenges, therefore, the abovementioned Judgment alleging in essence violation of his fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by Articles 23 [Human Dignity], 24 [Equality Before the Law], 31 [Right to Fair and Impartial Trial] of the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo in conjunction with Article 6 (Right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter: the ECHR) and Article 49 [Right to Work and Exercise Profession] of the Constitution. The Applicant specifically requested the Court “the reinstatement to his working place and compensation of personal income”.

With regard to the alleged violations of the above-mentioned Articles of the Constitution and the ECHR, the Applicant, in addition to mentioning these Articles, has not substantiated in any way how and why his rights protected by the Constitution and the ECHR have been violated.

In this regard, the Court recalls its case law according to which only the mention of an article of the Constitution, without clear and adequate reasoning as to how that right has been violated, is not sufficient as an argument to activate the machinery of protection provided by the Constitution and the Court, as an institution that cares for the respect of human rights and freedoms. (See, in this context, the cases of the Court KI02/18, Applicant Government of the Republic of Kosovo [Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning], Resolution on Inadmissibility of 20 June 2019, paragraph 36; KI95/19, Applicant Ruzhdi Bejta, Resolution on Inadmissibility of 8 October 2019, paragraphs 30-31).

The Court in this context notes that the regular courts and specifically the Supreme Court found that the Applicant was late in filing a lawsuit, and in this case missed the legal deadlines provided by the legal provisions for filing a lawsuit.

As explained above, the Applicant does not bring any additional arguments or reasoning before the Court in support of his allegations of violation of his constitutional rights. Consequently, the Court, based on its Rules of Procedure, namely paragraph 2 of its Rule 39, must declare this Referral inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded on constitutional basis, because the Applicant does not prove or sufficiently substantiate his allegation.