Constitutional Court

KI30/19, Applicant: Isni Kryeziu, request for constitutional review of Regulation (GRK) No. 14/2018 for Internal Organization and Systematization of Working Places in the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology of 26 September 2018 

KI30/19, Resolution on Inadmissibility of 3 April 2019, published on 23 April 2019

Keywords: Individual referral, actio popularis, Regulation of the Government, unauthorized party, request for interim measure

The Applicant since 2007 has exercised the position of the Director of the Legal Department in the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MEST).  In September 2018, the Government of the Republic of Kosovo (the Government), by Decision No. 1/64, approved Regulation No. 14/2018 on Internal Organization and Systematization of Working Places in MEST.

The Applicant alleged before the Court that Regulation No. 14/2008, is in contradiction with the legislation in force, namely, the Law on the Civil Service, the Law on the State Administration, Regulation No. 09/2011 of Rules and Procedure of the Government of the Republic of Kosovo, Regulation No. 13/2013 on Government Legal Service, Regulation No. 05/2016 on Minimum Standards for Public Consultation Process. Therefore, he also stated that Regulation No. 14/2018 violates his rights guaranteed by Articles 24 [Equality Before the Law], 32 [Right to Legal Remedies], 49 [Right to Work and Exercise Profession] and 55 [Limitations on Fundamental Rights and Freedoms] of the Constitution.

Finally, the Applicant requests the Court to approve the Referral as grounded and partially annul Regulation No. 14/2018, as well as to impose the interim measure by the Court – the postponement of the implementation of Regulation No. 14/2018, until a final decision is rendered by the Court.

In this regard, the Court noted that the Applicant se challenged before the Court, in abstractio, the constitutionality of Regulation No. 14/2018. The Court further explained the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo does not provide for the institution of an actio popularis, which would allow any individual who attempts to protect the public interest and the constitutional order, to address the Constitutional Court with questions and with certain requests, alluding to the fact that certain legal provisions or public acts appear to contravene the Constitution. Individuals are authorized to challenge only individual acts of public authorities that violate their individual rights and only after the exhaustion of all legal remedies provided for in paragraph 7 of Article 113 of the Constitution.

Therefore, the Court stated that in the circumstances in which the referral was filed by an unauthorized party, the Court cannot assess the merits of the case and consequently, in the present case, the Court does not assess the Applicant’s allegations whether the provisions of Regulation No. 14/2018 are, or are not in compliance with the Constitution. Therefore, the Court found that the Referral was not submitted by an authorized party in a lawful manner as provided by Article 113 paragraphs 1 and 7 of the Constitution, Article 47 of the Law, Rule 39 (1) (a) of the Rules of Procedure, and as such is inadmissible. The Court also rejected the request for interim measure.