Constitutional Court

KI132/17, Applicant: Ajshe Hoti, Constitutional review of Judgment Rev. no. 147/2017 of the Supreme Court of 29 June 2017

KI132/17, Resolution on inadmissibility of 2 March 2018, published on 19 April 2018.

Key words: individual referral, constitutional review of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Kosovo, labour contest, manifestly ill-founded

The Referral is based on Article 113.7 of the Constitution, Article 47 of Law no. 03/L-121 on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Kosovo, and Rule 29 of the Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Kosovo.

The present Applicant initiated a contested procedure with the regular courts against Insurance Company “Kosova e Re” following the termination of her employment relationship with the said company, requesting to be reinstated to her previous position and paid the unpaid personal income for the period during which she was not employed. The proceedings were concluded with higher judicial instances upholding the judgment of the Municipal Court obliging Respondent Kosova e Re to reinstate the Applicant to her previous job position with all the rights and obligations deriving from the employment relationship.

The Applicant initiated other proceedings with the Basic Court against Company Kosova e Re, in which she requested compensation for damage caused by unpaid personal income. The proceedings were concluded by the Judgment of the Supreme Court whereby the Applicant’s request was rejected as ungrounded reasoning that the Applicant’s personal income had already been paid to her.

The Applicant alleges that by granting the request for revision, the Supreme Court violated her right guaranteed by Article 31 of the Constitution and Article 6 of ECHR.

The Court does not see any arbitrariness in the reasoning of the challenged Judgment of the Supreme Court in terms of the application of the substantive law, and cannot find elements that would indicate irregularity, arbitrariness or discrimination in rendering the challenged decisions to the detriment of the Applicant.

The Court reiterates that it is the Applicant’s obligation to substantiate her constitutional allegations and submit prima facie evidence indicating that the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the ECHR have been violated. Therefore, the Court concluded that the Applicant’s referral is manifestly ill-founded and must be declared inadmissible.