Constitutional Court

KO158/23, Applicant: Besnik Tahiri and nine (9) other deputies of the Assembly of the Republic of Kosovo, Constitutional review of Law No. 08/L-142 on Amending and Supplementing the Laws that Determine the Amount of the Benefit in the Amount of the Minimum Wage, Procedures on Setting of Minimum Wage and Tax Rates on Annual Personal Income

KO158/23, Judgment of June 19, 2024, published on July 31, 2024

Key words: institutional request, admissible referral, determining the amount of the benefit at the minimum wage, minimum wage determination procedures, KLA veterans, pensions, compensations and social benefits, blind people, paraplegic and quadriplegic people, equality before the law, protection of property, legitimate expectations, social protection and social equality, social dialogue, social status, social policies, Economic-Social Council

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Kosovo has decided regarding the referral in case KO158/23, submitted by Besnik Tahiri and nine (9) other deputies of the Assembly of the Republic of Kosovo, based on the provisions of paragraph 5 of article 113 [Jurisdiction and Authorized Parties] of the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo pertaining to the constitutional review of the Law No. 08/L-142 on Amending and Supplementing the Laws that Determine the Amount of the Benefit in the Amount of the Minimum Wage, Procedures on Setting of Minimum Wage and Tax Rates on Annual Personal Income.

The Court, has decided (i) unanimously, to declare the referral admissible; and (ii) unanimously, to find that article 2 (Amending and supplementing Law No. 04/L-261 on War Veterans of the Kosovo Liberation Army, amended and supplemented by Law No. 05/L-141) of the contested Law, is not in contradiction with article 24 [Equality Before the Law] and article 46 [Protection of Property] of the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo in conjunction with article 1 of Protocol no. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights; (iii) with eight (8) votes in favor and one (1) against, that article 3 (Amending and Supplementing of Law No. 04/L-092 on Blind Persons) of the contested Law, is not in contradiction with article 24 [Equality Before the Law] and article 46 [Protection of Property] of the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo in conjunction with article 1 of Protocol no. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights; (iv) unanimously, that article 4 (Amendment and Supplementation of Law No. 05/L-067 on the Status and Rights of Paraplegic and Tetraplegic Persons) of the contested Law, is not in contradiction with article 24 [Equality Before the Law] and article 46 [Protection of Property] of the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo in conjunction with article 1 of Protocol no. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights; and (v) with eight (8) votes in favor and one (1) against, to find that article 6 (Amendment and supplement of Law No. 03/L-212 on Labor) of the contested Law, is not in contradiction with article 51 [Health and Social Protection] of the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo; and (v) unanimously, to declare that, based on article 43 (Deadlines) of the Law nr.03/L-121 for the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Kosovo, the Law No. 08/L-142 on Amending and Supplementing the Laws that Determine the Amount of the Benefit in the Amount of the Minimum Wage, Procedures on Setting of Minimum Wage and Tax Rates on Annual Personal Income, is sent to the President of the Republic of Kosovo for promulgation.

The Judgment initially clarifies that the contested Law amends and supplements (i) Law no. 04/L-261 on War Veterans of the Kosovo Liberation Army, amended and supplemented by Law No. 05/L-141; (ii) Law no. 04/L-092 on Blind Persons; (iii) Law no. 05/L-067 on the Status and Rights of Paraplegic and Tetraplegic Persons; (iv) Law no. 05/L-028 on Personal Income Tax; and (v) Law no.03/L-212 on Labor. In essence, the contested Law amends and supplements the aforementioned laws, in two relevant aspects. First, it changes the manner of determining the amount of pensions and compensations, including the relation of this amount with the minimum wage for the KLA veterans, blind persons, and paraplegic and tetraplegic persons, specifying that, different from the current regulations, according to which the amount of pensions and/or corresponding compensations is related to the amount or a level of the amount of the minimum wage in the Republic of Kosovo, the amount of these pensions and/or compensations is now set by the Government, with the proposal of the responsible Ministry of Finance, depending on the budget possibilities, the cost of living and eventual inflation. Secondly, it changes the manner of determining the amount of the minimum wage in the Republic of Kosovo, specifying that, different from the current regulations, according to which at the end of each calendar year, the Government determines the minimum wage according to the proposal of the Economic-Social Council, in the absence of a proposal from the latter, it is the Government itself that determines the amount of the minimum wage. The Judgment further clarifies that the contested Law does not affect the right of the aforementioned categories to pensions and compensations, nor does it determine as such their amount.

The applicant deputies of the Assembly contest the above-mentioned Law, claiming that it is contrary to articles 24 [Equality Before the Law], 46 [Protection of Property ] and 51 [Health and Social Protection] of the Constitution, in essence, because (i) changing the manner of determining the amount of pensions and/or compensations by eliminating the reference to the minimum wage level, results in the violation of the principle of equality before the law among the categories of KLA veterans, blind persons, and paraplegic and tetraplegic, because by leaving the determination of the corresponding level of compensation to the discretion of the Government, these categories have no guarantee that they will be compensated in an equal manner; (ii) the elimination of the reference to the minimum wage for the determination of the amount of pensions and/or compensations for these categories, violates their legitimate expectations, and consequently the rights to property for KLA veterans, blind persons, and paraplegic and tetraplegic persons; and (iii) the possibility of the Government, in the absence of the proposal of the Economic-Social Council, to determine the minimum wage itself, is not in accordance with the constitutional values ​​of social justice, and which must be interpreted according to the principles specified by the International Labor Organization (ILO) and the Minimum Wage Fixing Convention. The claims of the applicants are, in principle, also supported by the Ombudsperson, while they are counter-argued by the Ministry of Finance and the Parliamentary Group of the VETËVENDOSJE! Movement. The latter emphasize that the contested Law is in accordance with the Constitution, in essence, because: (i) the principle of equality before the law has not been violated, considering that the affected categories are not in “analogous or relatively similar situations” with each other, nor with the employees of the Republic of Kosovo, given that (a) KLA veterans, receive the pension and other benefits due to their service in the war and as a sign of the state’s gratitude to them; (b) blind persons, and paraplegic and tetraplegic persons benefit from rights and benefits due to their personal characteristics; while (c) employees are paid for their work and service by the public or private sector and, consequently, the concept of minimum wage applies only to this category; (ii) the legitimate expectations and, consequently, the property rights of the aforementioned categories have not been violated, taking into account that the level of the pension and/or corresponding compensations has not been reduced, while the detachment from the reference to the minimum wage level is related to the need to maintain the financial stability and necessary flexibility to change the level of the minimum wage, also maintaining that Governments enjoy wide discretion in determining social policies and pension levels; and (iii) the method of setting the minimum wage is not a constitutional matter, while the ILO  standards are not applicable because the Republic of Kosovo is not a member of it, but even if the ILO standards were applied, they stipulate the obligation of consultation, which has not been affected by the contested Law.

In assessing the constitutionality of the contested Law, the Judgment first and among others elaborates: (i) the basic constitutional principles related to social justice, as specified in articles 7 [Values] and 51 [Health and Social Protection] of the Constitution, including the status of ILO’s Minimum Wage Fixing Convention, the European Social Charter and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; (ii) the basic principles arising from the case-law of the Court and that of the European Court of Human Rights regarding equality before the law and property rights, including in the context of the amount of benefits and/or compensations related to social security; and (iii) the history of applicable laws relating to pensions, compensation and benefits of KLA veterans, blind persons, and paraplegic and tetraplegic persons.

In applying the aforementioned principles, the Judgment initially emphasizes that (i) based on article 7 [Values] of the Constitution, the constitutional order of the Republic of Kosovo is based, among others, on the principles of democracy, equality, respect for human rights and freedoms and the rule of law, non-discrimination, property rights and social justice; (ii) based on article 24 [Equality Before the Law] of the Constitution, no one can be discriminated against on grounds of, among others, social status; while (iii) based on article 51 [Health and Social Protection] of the Constitution, basic social insurance, concerning unemployment, illness, disabilities and old age, is regulated by law. The Judgment, referring to the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, also emphasizes the fact that states, in principle, have discretion in determining social policies, including the nature and level of benefits and/or compensation for different social categories, always under the obligation of equal and proportional treatment of these categories, including in the context of the corresponding legitimate expectations for compensation and/or support from the state.

In the Court’s Judgment, the principles explained above have been applied in the examination of each assessed article of the contested Law. Having said that and for the purposes of this summary, the Court will clarify the main findings and conclusions regarding the most contested issues of the contested Law, namely whether as a result of eliminating the correlation of the amount of pensions and/or compensations to the level of the minimum wage or a level of the amount of minimum wage in the Republic of Kosovo, (i) the principle of equality before the law, among KLA veterans, blind persons, and paraplegic and tetraplegic persons, has been violated; (ii) whether the property rights of KLA veterans, blind persons, and paraplegic and tetraplegic persons has been violated; and (iii) whether the principles of social justice have been violated as a result of the change in the manner of determining the minimum wage level in the Republic of Kosovo. In what follows, the most essential findings of the Judgment related to the three aforementioned issues will be reflected.

• equality before the law in the context of the amount of pensions and/or compensations related to KLA veterans, blind persons and paraplegic and tetraplegic persons

In assessing whether the contested Law violates the principle of equality before the law, the Judgment, in the context of the Court’s case-law and that of the European Court of Human Rights, reiterates that, in principle, to find a violation of the principle of equality before the law according to the provisions of article 24 [Equality Before the Law] of the Constitution, it must first be assessed if the categories claimed to have been discriminated against, are in “analogous or relatively similar situations” and if this is the case, whether there is a “difference in treatment” among them.

In the context of the aforementioned analysis, the Judgment, among others, emphasizes the specifics of the laws applicable to KLA veterans, blind persons, and paraplegic and tetraplegic persons and employees in the public and private sector, underlining the respective goals, obligations, but also the rights and benefits, including the differences between them, with respect to the aforementioned categories. The Judgment, among others, also clarifies (i) the difference between the scope of the Law on Labor, including in the context of rights and obligations for employees in the public and private sectors, with the scopes of the respective laws related to KLA veterans, blind persons and paraplegic and tetraplegic persons, and which define rights, benefits and facilities for the three aforementioned categories; and (ii) the differences between the scope of laws pertaining to the KLA veterans, blind persons, and paraplegic and tetraplegic persons, which, in principle, include rights and benefits for: (a) the KLA veterans due to their sacrifice, commitment and precious contribution, who throughout the Liberation War of Kosovo, were decisive factors for bringing freedom and independence to the people of Kosovo; and (b) blind persons, and paraplegic and tetraplegic persons, due to their personal characteristics and the rights arising from article 51 [Health and Social Protection] of the Constitution.

Based on the clarifications given in the Judgment, and taking into account the difference between the scope of the Law on Labor, on the one hand, and the scopes of the laws applicable to KLA veterans, blind persons, and paraplegic and tetraplegic persons, on the other hand, including the purpose of each aforementioned law and the difference in the context of obligations, but also the rights, benefits and facilities for each abovementioned category included, the Court assessed that the abovementioned categories cannot be considered to be in “analogous or relatively similar positions” with each other and consequently, there cannot be a “difference in treatment” and thus a violation of the quality before the law principle, in principle, because the category of KLA veterans is supported by the state, due to their contribution to the freedom and independence of the people of Kosovo, whereas the categories of blind persons and paraplegic and tetraplegic persons are supported by the state, due to their personal characteristics, based on the specifics and determinations of two applicable laws, namely the Law on Blind Persons and Law on Paraplegic and Tetraplegic Persons, respectively. According to the clarifications given in the Judgment, the abovementioned findings are supported by the case-law of the European Court for Human Rights, which specifically addresses the difference in treatment in the context of compensations and/or social benefits among employees in the public and private sectors, including among war veterans and other categories of society that qualify to benefit from various social benefits.

Consequently and according to the clarifications given in the Judgment, the Court found that articles 2, 3 and 4 of the contested Law are not in contradiction with article 24 [Equality Before the Law] of the Constitution.

• property rights related to legitimate expectations for a certain amount of pensions and/or benefits that are related to the amount or a level of the minimum wage in the Republic of Kosovo

In assessing whether the contested Law infringes upon the property rights of the category of KLA veterans, blind persons, and paraplegic and tetraplegic persons, the Judgment, in the context of the Court’s case-law and that of the European Court of Human Rights, reiterates that, based on article 46 [Protection of Property] of the Constitution in conjunction with article 1 of Protocol no. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the concept of “property”, in principle, includes both “existing property” and claimed property, including in the context of “future income”, in relation to which an individual may argue that he/she has at least a “legitimate expectation”. The aforementioned case-law emphasizes the fact that “pensions and social benefits”, including non-contribution schemes, also enjoy the protection of article 1 of Protocol no. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, under the conditions and principles determined by the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights. In addition, these rights that can be limited/restricted in the circumstances in which the “interference/restriction” of the relevant rights is (i) “prescribed by law”; (ii) pursues a “legitimate aim”; and (iii) is “proportionate” to the legitimate aim pursued.

The Judgment also clarifies that, in principle, based on the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, (i) states enjoy the freedom to decide whether to have any form of social security scheme or to choose the type or amount of benefits which may be provided under any such scheme, however, (ii) if a state provides for a pension as a right of a welfare benefit, whether or not conditional on the prior payment of contributions, that legislation must be regarded as giving rise to a property interest, which falls within the scope of article 1 of Protocol no. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights; while (iii) the rights related to pension schemes can be limited for legitimate purposes, and which, in principle, also include the risk of damaging the financial balance of the social security system, provided that such limitations/restrictions are proportionate.

According to the clarifications given, disputed in the circumstances of the contested Law is whether by eliminating the reference to the level of the minimum wage or a degree thereof of the minimum wage, the contested Law has resulted into the violation of property rights for (a) KLA veterans; (b) blind persons; and (c) paraplegic and tetraplegic persons. The Court’s findings regarding these matters will be summarized below.

(a) concerning the KLA veterans

In the context of the category of KLA veterans, analyzing the amendments and supplements of the applicable laws over the years, the Judgment clarifies that the correlation of the amount of pensions of KLA veterans to the amount of the minimum wage in the Republic of Kosovo, was not changed/amended through the contested Law, but rather this was done back in 2017, through the amendment and supplementation of the Law on Veterans, namely Law no. 05/L-141 on Amending and Supplementing Law no. 04/L-261 on War Veterans of the Kosovo Liberation Army. The latter, as far as it is relevant for the circumstances of the present case, since 2017 (i) has deleted article 18 (Pension Level) of the basic Law, namely the provision that specified that depending on budget possibilities, the cost of living and eventual inflation at the end of each year, for the coming year, the Government, with the proposal of the Ministry of Finance, can decide on the amount of the pension for KLA war veterans, an amount which “cannot be lower than the minimum wage in Kosovo“; while (ii) it added to the basic Law article 16A (no title) which, among others, determined the categorization of KLA veterans in accordance with the time of mobilization and service in the KLA, specifying the amount of the monthly pension for each category, and limiting the general amount of payments for the pensions of KLA veterans at the limit of 0.7% (zero point seven percent) of the annual Gross Domestic Product.

The Judgment recalls that the amendments and supplements to the Law on Veterans of 2017, have been contested before the Constitutional Court, and the latter, by the Judgment in case KO01/17, has specifically addressed the issue of the correlation of the amount of pensions of KLA veterans to the minimum wage level in the Republic of Kosovo. According to the clarifications provided in the relevant Judgment of 2017, the Court maintained that while the elimination of the guarantees related to the minimum wage for the categories of KLA veterans constitutes an “interference” with the relevant property rights, this interference” was followed by a legitimate aim and was proportionate to the aim pursued, thus finding that it is not in contradiction with the Constitution. As a result, and according to the clarifications given in the Judgment, the claims related to the violation of the property rights of KLA veterans as a result of eliminating the correlation between the amount of pensions with the amount of the minimum wage in the Republic of Kosovo, have been concluded by the Judgment of the Court in case KO01/17.

Having said that, the Judgment clarifies that the contested Law contains an additional amendment and/or supplement that is related to the transitional period, namely the level of pensions of the KLA veterans until their final categorization. More precisely, and according to the clarifications given, (i) while the Law on KLA Veterans of 2017, had eliminated the guarantee of the correlation of the amount of the pension to the minimum wage, it had kept in force the provisions of the basic law, namely the Law on Veterans of 2014, enabling the KLA veterans to receive pensions at least at the level of the minimum wage until their final categorization; and (ii) this determination is changed by the contested Law, which places the determination of the amount of the respective pensions during this transitional period, namely until the final categorization of the KLA veterans, at the discretion of the Government, depending on budget possibilities, the cost of living and eventual inflation.

Consequently, in the circumstances of the contested Law, the correlation between the amount of pensions and the minimum wage is not at question, because this issue has been resolved by the Law on KLA Veterans of 2017, but questionable is whether the delays in the implementation of the abovementioned law, respectively the obligation of the state to make the final categorization of veterans, may result in “legitimate expectations” for the category of KLA veterans that until their final categorization, they will benefit from pensions at the level of the minimum wage in the Republic of Kosovo.

In the aforementioned context, the Judgment, among others, emphasizes that based on the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, “legitimate expectations” for “future income”, including in the context of “pension and social benefits”, cannot merely originate from delays pertaining to the implementation of laws, including the Law on KLA Veterans of 2017 in the context of the categorization of KLA veterans, also emphasizing the fact that based on the principles of the rule of law and legal certainty, which, among others, derive from article 7 [Values] of the Constitution, public authorities in the Republic of Kosovo are obliged to implement the laws adopted by the Assembly. Furthermore, the Judgment clarifies that (i) the state’s obligation to provide financial support through pensions and special benefits for the categories resulting from the KLA war, which with their sacrifice and contribution were decisive factors for the freedom and liberation of the Republic of Kosovo, is not questionable through the contested Law; (ii) the contested Law does not affect the KLA veterans’ right to pension as a result of their aforementioned contribution; while (iii) the contested Law does neither determine nor reduce the amount of pensions of the category of the KLA veterans. Having said that, the Judgment also states that based on the guarantees stemming from article 46 [Protection of Property] of the Constitution in conjunction with article 1 of Protocol no. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the eventual reduction of the level of the amount of “future income”, including in the context of “pension and social benefits”, may result in an “interference” with the right to property, and may be contested and subject to the assessment of legality and/or constitutionality, in the context of interference with these rights and the proportionality of this interference in relation to the legitimate aim pursued.

As a result and according to the clarifications given in the Judgment, the Court found that article 2 of the contested Law is not in contradiction with article 46 [Protection of Property] of the Constitution in conjunction with article 1 of Protocol no. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

1. b) concerning blind persons, and paraplegic and tetraplegic persons

In the context of the category of blind persons and paraplegic and tetraplegic persons, analyzing the amendments and supplements of the applicable laws over the years, the Judgment clarifies that unlike the Law on the KLA Veterans of 2017, the Law on Blind Persons and the Law on Paraplegic and Tetraplegic Persons, do not guarantee the amount of compensation to be at least at the level of the minimum wage in the Republic of Kosovo, but rather “at a certain level, based on the minimum wage” determined by the Government. In addition, the aforementioned laws also differ between one another in the context of guarantees regarding the level of compensation because the Law on Blind Persons, includes an additional guarantee and according to which, blind persons receive compensation from the state budget at a determined rate based on the minimum wage, but not less than one hundred (100) euro per month. While the Law on Paraplegic and Tetraplegic Persons, also emphasizes the discretion of the state to change the amount of compensation, including its discretion to reduce and eliminate altogether the latter, depending on the availability of funds and circumstances that create unforeseen fiscal strains in the public budget. The contested Law amends and supplements the aforementioned laws, determining the same mechanism for both categories, respectively that the Government, with the proposal of the Ministry of Finance, decides on the amount of compensation for blind persons and paraplegic and tetraplegic persons, depending on budgetary possibilities, the cost of living and eventual inflation.

According to the clarifications given in the Judgment, in the context of the laws applicable for the blind persons and paraplegic and tetraplegic persons, (i) the right of blind persons and paraplegic and tetraplegic persons to financial support and/or compensation is not questionable, because this right derives from article 51 [Health and Social Protection] of the Constitution and the applicable laws and is not affected through the contested Law, but (ii) it is questionable whether the amount of compensation, which is not specified in the applicable laws nor in the contested Law, may give rise to “legitimate expectations” in relation to the “future income” of blind persons, and paraplegic and tetraplegic persons, for the purposes of the guarantees contained in article 46 [Protection of Property] of the Constitution in conjunction with article 1 of Protocol no. 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In such circumstances and taking into account that the right to monthly compensation is not affected, but the dispute concerns the amount of this compensation which is not necessarily reduced by the contested Law, it cannot be established that the property rights of these categories have been violated.

As a result and according to the clarifications given in the Judgment, the Court held that articles 3 and 4 of the contested Law are not in contradiction with article 46 [Protection of Property] of the Constitution in conjunction with article 1 of Protocol no. 1 to the European Convention on Human Rights.

Having said this and emphasizing the competence of the Assembly to determine the social policies of the Republic of Kosovo, always in accordance with the values ​​of the Constitution related to social justice and fundamental rights and freedoms, the Judgment emphasizes (i) article 51 [Health and Social Protection] of the Constitution and which, among others, guarantees basic social insurance related to unemployment, illness, disabilities and old age in a manner regulated by law; (ii) article 28 (Adequate standards of living and social protection) of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities, according to which states are obliged to recognize the right of persons with disabilities to an adequate standard of living for themselves and their families, including adequate food, clothing and housing, as well as the right to the continuous improvement of living conditions, and commit to taking appropriate steps to protect and improve the realization of this right without discrimination on the basis of disability; and (iii) the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, according to which, persons with disabilities are identified as a category which is marginalized, and which has historically been subject to discrimination and prejudice caused by their isolation in society. Considering these principles and the fact that the margin of appreciation of the states in restricting the rights of these categories is substantially more limited, the Judgment emphasizes that the Assembly and/or the Government must have very serious reasons to interfere with these rights, including in the context of the possibility of reducing the amount of corresponding compensations. Having said that and taking into account the fact that the contested Law does not affect the right to compensation of the aforementioned categories, nor does it determine and/or reduce this amount, the Judgment highlights that the eventual reduction of the amount of “future income”, including in the context of “pensions and social benefits”, must always be proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued and in this context, it can be challenged and subject to the assessment of legality and/or constitutionality, namely compatibility with fundamental rights and freedoms of blind persons and paraplegic and tetraplegic persons.

• the method of determining the level of the minimum wage

In the context of the mechanisms that determine the level of the minimum wage in the Republic of Kosovo, the Judgment first clarifies that article 57 (Minimum wage) of the Law on Labor, among others, establishes that the Government of Kosovo, at the end of each calendar year, determines the minimum wage according to the proposal of the Economic-Social Council, while the contested Law amends and supplements the aforementioned article, retaining the Government’s obligation to determine the minimum wage according to the proposal of the Economic-Social Council, but adding the possibility for the Government to itself determine the minimum wage, in the absence of such a proposal from the Economic-Social Council.

In assessing the constitutionality of the aforementioned article, the Judgment reiterates that, beyond social justice as a value of the Republic of Kosovo, the issues related to the mechanisms that determine the minimum wage are regulated at the level of the law and sub-legal act, respectively with the Administrative Instruction no. 09/2017 for Setting the Minimum Wage in the Republic of Kosovo. Moreover, according to the clarifications given, while the ILO Minimum Wage Fixing Convention is not directly applicable in the legal order of the Republic of Kosovo, the principles stemming from the latter are reflected, in principle, in the applicable Law on Labor. According to the standards of the abovementioned Convention, setting the minimum wage is one of the mechanisms that states should use to achieve social justice, and the purpose of setting the minimum wage should be to protect workers who have very low wages, to provide them conditions for a dignified life and that the level of this wage should be determined after full agreement or consultation with representatives of employees and employers.

The Judgment further clarifies that, while article 6 of the contested Law eliminates the condition based on which the proposal of the Social-Economic Council is necessary for the determination of the minimum wage, it does not necessarily affect the obligation for full consultation with the organizations that represent the employees and employers within the Economic-Social Council, because the latter always has the primary role in the decision regarding the proposal to set the minimum wage in the Republic of Kosovo and only in case of failure to reach this consensus, the decision-making competence for that calendar year, passes to the Government of Republic of Kosovo. According to the clarifications given, the Court notes that the change in the method of setting the minimum wage in the context of the composition and decision-making of the Economic-Social Council, may affect the manner of consultation and/or decision-making among representatives of employers’ organizations, employees and the Government, in determining the level of the minimum wage, nevertheless, it is not within the competence of the Court to assess the selection of public policy by the representatives of the people, but only to assess whether the provisions of the Constitution have been violated. As explained above, the latter does not contain norms concerning the necessary mechanisms for determining the minimum wage in the Republic of Kosovo.

In such circumstances and according to the clarifications provided, the Court found that article 6 of the contested Law is not in contradiction with article 51 [Health and Social Protection] of the Constitution.