Constitutional Court

KI117/20, Applicant: Isuf Musliu, Constitutional review of the lack of court decisions regarding the claim for material compensation and reinstatement to work at the University of Prishtina

KI117/20, Decision on Inadmissibility, of 11 November 2020, published on 29 December 2020

Keywords: individual referral, compensation claim, non-exhaustion of legal remedies

The Applicant challenges before the Constitutional Court the lack of court decisions regarding the claim for material compensation for the lectures held and reinstatement to work as a professor at the University of Prishtina. The Applicant did not accurately clarify which fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution he alleges to have been violated.

The Court noted that the Applicant had addressed the Basic Court with a claim against the Rectorate of the University of Prishtina claiming compensation of income and fees for the lectures that the Applicant claims to have held at the University of Prishtina and the University of Prizren, as well as reinstatement to work as a lecturer at the University of Prishtina.

On 15 July 2019, the Basic Court had held a preparatory hearing regarding the Applicant’s claim in which the Applicant’s motion to request information from the Faculty of Education in Prizren on the lectures held by the Applicant was approved. Furthermore, the Basic Court in its response to the Court stated that the Applicant’s case “has a legal priority and the same will be processed within a reasonable time, according to the order of cases with the same priority”.

In this context, it follows that regarding the Applicant’s claim, court proceedings are being conducted before the Basic Court, which has not yet rendered a decision regarding the Applicant’s claim. In this regard, the Court emphasizes the fact that all the allegations of the Applicant can be reviewed by the regular courts. Consequently, the Court finds that the Applicant has submitted his Referral to the Constitutional Court before exhausting all effective remedies provided for in the relevant legislation. Therefore, the Applicant’s Referral before the Constitutional Court is premature and must be declared inadmissible on constitutional grounds, as defined by Article 113.7 of the Constitution, provided by Article 47 of the Law and further specified by Rule 39 (1) (b) of the Rules of Procedure.