Constitutional Court

KI55/2o Applicant: Arsim Biçaku, constitutional review of Decision Rev. No. 359/2019 of the Supreme Court of 15 January 2020

KI 55/20, resolution on inadmissibility of 9 September 2021, published on 13 October 2021

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

The Referral is based on Article 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 20 October 2003, the Applicant was notified by Raiffeisen Bank that his employment relationship would be terminated as of that date due to non-compliance with the obligations set out in the regulation.

The Applicant against the notice of termination, conducted the court proceedings, which were remanded to the lower instance courts for reconsideration several times and culminated in a judgment of the Supreme Court. In the proceedings before the regular courts, it was determined that the Applicant was unlawfully dismissed, which is why a monetary compensation was ordered for that period. In one part of the proceedings, Raiffeisen Bank offered the Applicant reinstatement, but the Applicant rejected such an offer, accordingly the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court reasoned that after this period, the claimant was not entitled to salary compensation because he had been reinstated and voluntarily left the same working place. Therefore, there is no evidence that the Applicant was denied the right to legal work in accordance with internal regulations.

The Applicant in essence alleges a violation, (i) allegations of a violation of the rights guaranteed by Article 49 [Right to Work and Exercise Profession] of the Constitution, (ii) erroneous application of the law, and (iii) violation of the right to a defense.

The Court concludes that the Applicant’s allegations of violation of the rights guaranteed by Article 49 of the Constitution, erroneous application of the law and violation of the right to defense should be declared inadmissible in their entirety as manifestly ill-founded because these allegations of the Applicant qualify as (ii) allegations that are characterized by „clear or apparent absence of a violation” and (iii) „unsubstantiated or unsupported“ allegations.  Therefore, the latter are manifestly ill founded on constitutional basis, as established by paragraph (2) of Rule 39 of the Rules of Procedure.