Constitutional Court

The Applicant claims that the Supreme Court, by Judgment Rev, 308/2007, dated 10 June 2010, placed her in an unequal position vis-a-vis her former colleagues who were in the same situation, i,e, had permanent employment status within the same company and won their cases before the Supreme Court, whereafter they were reinstated into their previous workplaces, The Applicant argues that only her case was decided differently by the Supreme Court and that, therefore, she became a victim of injustice and discrimination, Initially, she attached to her Referral two judgments of the Supreme Court, both issued on 17 January 2008 (under Rev, no, 126/2007 and Rev, no, 177/2007) which related to two of her former colleagues, while, in her written submission of 26 September 2011, she listed the names of 6 former colleagues who had won their cases before the Supreme Court (including the names of the two colleagues whose judgments she already had submitted), However, in this Court’s opinion, the Supreme Court’s judgment, by neglecting the proper assessment of the Applicant’s arguments regarding her permanent employment status, even though they were specific, relevant and important, fell short of the Supreme Court’s obligations under Article 6,1 of the ECHR to fulfill the obligation of stating the reasons (see mutatis mutandis, ECtHR Judgment of 18 July 2006 in the case Pronina v, Ukraine, Application no, 63566/00; see also the Court’s Judgment in Case No, 40/09 – Imer Ibrahimi and 48 other employees of the KEK, i,e, “KEK I judgment), Moreover, the Court notes that the Supreme Court, in its Judgment Rev, no, 154/2008, of 7 February 2011, i,e, 7 months after its judgment in the Applicant’s case, did not repeat its findings in the Applicant’s case, but again ruled in the same way as it had done in the four cases prior to the Applicant’s case, considering the confirmation of the permanent employment status as the subject matter of the disputes and using similar extensive and thorough reasoning to reject the revision submitted by “Kosova e Re”, In these circumstances, the Court finds that the Supreme Court has dealt with the Applicant’s case in an evidently arbitrary manner, contrary to the principles elaborated by the ECtHR in its above mentioned judgment, in Nejdet Sahin and Perihan Sahin v, Turkey [GC], no, 13279/05, 20 October 2011, Therefore, the Court concludes that there has been a violation of Article 31 of the Constitution, in compliance with Article 6,1 of ECHR