Constitutional Court

KI81/20, Applicant: Arbër Shkreli, Constitutional review of Judgment Rev. No. 457/2019 of the Supreme Court of Kosovo of 30 January 2020

KI81/20, Resolution on Inadmissibility, adopted on 20 May 2021

Keywords: individual referral, manifestly ill-founded referral, erroneous interpretation of law, inadmissible referral

The Applicant before the Court challenges the Decision [Rev. No. 457/2019] of the Supreme Court of Kosovo, of 30 January 2020.

The circumstances of the present case are related to the Decision [No. 10697] of KEDS-District in Peja, which in the capacity of the employer, suspended the Applicant from work, until another decision, due to a serious violation of work duties, defined in Article 6 paragraph 6.1 subparagraphs (a), (j), (n) and (p) of the KEDS Disciplinary Code. The employer subsequently terminated the employment relationship with the Applicant. Following the latter’s complaint to the employer, the latter rejected the complaint as ungrounded. The Applicant filed a statement of claim with the Basic Court in Peja, requesting that the Employer’s Decision be annulled and that the Applicant be reinstated to work as well as compensation of lost salaries. The Basic Court approved the Applicant’s statement of claim, obliging the employer to reinstate the Applicant and to compensate him for the lost salaries. Following the employer’s appeal to the Court of Appeals, the latter rejected the appeal as ungrounded. The employer then filed a revision with the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court partially approved the revision as grounded, deciding to reject the statement of claim of the Applicant for reinstatement to work as ungrounded, quashed  the Judgment of the Basic Court in Peja, remanding for retrial the part related to point III, IV and V of the enacting clause of the latter; and rejected as ungrounded the employer’s revision for the annulment as unlawful of the Judgment of the Basic Court regarding the Decision [No. 11040], of 23 December 2015, of the employer.

The Applicant challenged these findings before the Court, alleging a violation of Article 31 [Right to Fair and Impartial Trial] and Article 49 [Right to Work and Exercise Profession] of the Constitution.

The Applicant essentially alleged before the Court erroneous application of procedural and substantive law, stating that the Judgment of the Supreme Court is unlawful and contradictory, the challenged decision is arbitrary due to the fact that it states that the Applicant’s employment contract has expired adding that in his case the provision of Article 10 of the Collective Agreement did not apply, and that the Supreme Court in its decision was biased.

The Court, after assessing the Applicant’s allegations, found that all regular courts dealt with and reasoned his allegations.

Therefore, applying the standards of its case law and the case law of the of the European Court of Human Rights, the Court found that the Referral is inadmissible, because the Applicant’s allegations of violation of Article 31 of the Constitution are manifestly ill-founded on the grounds of “clear or evident absence of a violation”, and consequently inadmissible, in accordance with paragraph 7 of Article 113 of the Constitution, Article 48 of the Law and Rule 39 (2) of the Rules of Procedure.