Constitutional Court

KI166/20 Applicant: Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare, constitutional review of Judgment ARJ-UVZP. No. 34/2020 of the Supreme Court of Kosovo of 6 May 2020

KI 166/20, resolution on inadmissibility of 17 December 2020, published on 5 January 2021

Keywords: legal person, constitutional review of the judgment of the Supreme Court, manifestly ill-founded

The Referral is based on Article 21, paragraph 4 and 113.7 of the Constitution, Article 22 and 47 of the Law No. 03/L-121 on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Kosovo and Rule 32 of the Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court.

On 29 July 2016, the Applicant rejected the request of claimant I. M. with the number on recognition of the right to a basic pension. I. M. dissatisfied with this decision, filed appeal with the Applicant. In response, the Applicant rejected the appeal of I.M.

IM filed a lawsuit against the Applicant’s decision with the Basic Court in Prishtina.

The Basic Court first suspended the proceedings and after clarifying the facts regarding the status of I.M. on 3 April 2019, continued the proceedings and on 17 June 2019 approved the statement of claim of I.M., annulled the challenged decision of the Applicant and recognized to I.M. the right to pension.

This court proceeding went through all the stages of proceedings before the regular courts and this court proceeding was completed by a final judgment of the Supreme Court, which upheld the decisions of the Basic Court and the Court of Appeals.

The Court notes that the Applicant reiterates the same allegations he filed before the regular courts, which essentially concern the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the substantive law by the Supreme Court.

As to the present case, the Court notes that the substance  of the allegation of a violation of (i) the rights guaranteed by Article 24 [Equality Before the Law] of the Constitution, and (ii) the rights guaranteed by Article 31 [Right to Fair and Impartial Trial] and Article 102 [General Principles of the Judicial System] of the Constitution.

As regards the abovementioned violations of the rights guaranteed by Articles 24, 31 and 102 of the Constitution, the Court recalls that it declares the submission inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded under criterion (iii) “unsubstantiated or unsupported” allegations. when one of the two characteristic requirements is met, namely (a) when the applicant merely cites one or more provisions of the Convention or the Constitution, without explaining in what way they have been breached, and (b) when the applicant omits or refuses to produce documentary evidence in support of his allegations (in particular, decisions of the courts or other domestic authorities).

The Court therefore finds that as regards these Applicant’s allegations of violation of the rights guaranteed by Articles 24, 31 and 102 of the Constitution, the Court concludes that the Referral should be declared inadmissible in its entirety as manifestly ill-founded, because these Applicant’s allegations qualify as allegations falling into the category (iii) “unsubstantiated or unsupported” allegations. Therefore, the latter are manifestly ill-founded on constitutional basis, as established in paragraph 2 of Rule