Constitutional Court

KI09/18 Applicant: „FINCA“  Kosovo, constitutional review of Decision CML. No. 3/2017 of the Supreme Court of 21 September 2017

KI09/18, Resolution on Inadmissibility of 30 January 2019, published on 14 March 2019

Keywords: legal persons, individual referral, constitutional review of the decision of the Supreme Court, manifestly ill-founded.

The Referral is based on Articles 21.4 and 113.7 of the Constitution, Article 47 of the 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.

The Applicant in 2010, after the disciplinary procedure, terminated the employment relationship to his employee M.B.

After that, the employee by a claim initiated an administrative proceeding against the Applicant that went through all stages before the regular courts. In the enforcement proceeding, the employee realized claims under the statement of claim.

Upon revision of the Applicant, the Supreme Court quashed the first instance judgment and remanded to the latter for retrial in the parts related to financial claims from the statement of claim.

In the repeated proceedings, the employee withdrew his claim regarding the property claims from the statement of claim. After that, the Applicant initiated the procedure against the enforcement in order to realize his property claim. The first instance court approved the procedure on the request for counter enforcement and the Court of Appeals upheld it, however, the Supreme Court, upon the request for the assessment of legality of the state prosecutor, quashed the first instance and the second instance decision on the request for counter enforcement regarding the fulfillment of its property claim.

The Applicant alleges that the regular courts violated its rights and freedoms guaranteed by Article 102 of the Constitution and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the ECHR. The Applicant also essentially initiates an allegation of violation of the right to fair and impartial trial, but it does not refer to any specific constitutional provision, however, the Court concludes that the Applicant also refers to a violation of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by Article 31 of the Constitution.

The Court notes that the Applicant did not substantiate by evidence that the challenged decisions violated his rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and the ECHR.

The Court considers that the Applicant failed to provide facts indicating that the decisions of the regular courts in any way caused a constitutional violation of his rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Therefore, the Court considers, on constitutional basis, that the Referral is manifestly ill-founded and is to be declared inadmissible.