Constitutional Court

The Applicant claimed that during the course of the abovementioned proceedings, his constitutional rights were violated because the respective courts did not apply the applicable provisions of law, According to the Applicant’s Referral and statement of facts, the Applicant alleged that the first instance court, the appeal and the revision courts have erroneously applied the material law, According to the Applicant, during all stages of the proceedings, the respective courts failed to provide the necessary legal reasoning grounded on the law, In this case, the Court notes that the Applicant mainly complains due to erroneous application of the material law, the lack of reasoning of those decisions and other reasons that have to do with his rights to work, As in many cases, in this case as well, the Court reminds the Applicant that the Constitutional Court is not a court of fourth instance, to assess the legality and accuracy of decisions issued by regular courts, unless there is convincing evidence that such decisions have been rendered in an unfair and unclear manner, It is the role of the regular courts to interpret and apply the relevant rules of both procedural and substantive law, (See Gacia Ruiz v, Spain [GC], No, 30544/96, 28, European Court on Human Rights [ECtHR] 1999-I), Therefore, in accordance with Rule 36 (2) b) of the Rules of Procedure, the Applicant’s Referral is considered as manifestly ill-founded and, as such, it is declared inadmissible by the Court