Constitutional Court

The Applicant claimed that the decisions of the regular courts have violated his right to work as guaranteed by Article 49 of the Constitution, The Applicant requested from the Court compensation for the lost time, Furthermore, the Applicant complained on the decisions of the regular courts regarding: a) the rejection of his claim as out of time; and b) the conclusions of the courts regarding the claims of former Kosovo Trust Agency, that TCC Kosova former Sloga in Prishtina was privatized and that the liquidation of the abovementioned enterprise, entered into force on 11 April 2007, by stating that until 25 April 2013, the liquidation of the enterprise above has not started, because twenty percent (20%) proceeds from the sale of this enterprise had not been paid yet to his employees, The Court, in this case, reiterated that it is not its task to assess the legality of decisions issued by regular courts, unless such decisions have been rendered in an arbitrary and unreasoned manner, It is the task of the Court to assess if the proceedings, in their entirety, have been in compliance with the Constitution, So, the Constitutional Court is not a fourth instance in respect to the decisions taken by regular courts, It is the role of the regular courts to interpret and apply the pertinent rules of both procedural and substantive law (See, mutatis mutandis, Garcia Ruiz v, Spain [GC], no, 30544/96, paragraph 28, European Court on Human Rights [ECHR] 1991-1), Finally, the Court concluded that the Applicant’s Referral does not meet all the admissibility requirements, Thus, pursuant to Article 48 of the Law and Rule 36 (2) a) and b) of the Rules of Procedure, the Referral is declared inadmissible