Constitutional Court

KI138/20, Applicant: Sejdi Namani, Constitutional Review of unspecified decisions or acts of public authorities

KI138/20, Decision to reject the referral, of 18 February 2021

Key words: individual referral, incomplete referral, decision to reject the referral

The Applicant had not challenged any concrete act of any public authority and had not accurately clarified what rights and fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution he alleged to have been violated through any act of a public authority.

The Applicant had been employed as a teacher in the Primary and Lower Secondary School “Nazim Gafurri” in Prishtina and on 30 March 2015, the Municipal Education Directorate of the Municipality of Prishtina, by Decision No. 119, imposed on the Applicant a disciplinary measure – temporary dismissal. On 30 September 2015, the Municipal Education Directorate in Prishtina, by Decision No. 329, had permanently terminated the employment of the Applicant. After filing the indictment against the Applicant, on 2 July 2018, the Basic Court in Prishtina, by Judgment PM. No. 4/16, acquitted the Applicant of the charge of committing the criminal offense he was charged with. The Applicant had filed a complaint with the Dispute Resolution and Complaints Commission in the Municipality of Prishtina, requesting to review the Decision on Dismissal and the Commission rejected the complaint of the Applicant as ungrounded.  Against the latter, the Applicant filed an appeal with the Labor Inspectorate, and the latter by Decision No. 01/37-153/19-A approved the appeal of the Applicant as partially grounded, deciding as follows: 1. With regard to the appeal for reinstatement to his job, the appeal is grounded; 2. With regard to the compensation of salaries, the appeal is ungrounded.

Considering the fact that the Referral of the Applicant was incomplete, the Court requested the Applicant to supplement his Referral by: a) specifying the acts of public authorities which he challenges; b) accurately clarifying his allegations for violation of rights and fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution; and c) submitting copies of documents and other information supporting his allegations. The Applicant did not respond to the request of the Court.

Therefore, the Court considered that the Referral of the Applicant does not meet the procedural requirements for further review, because it was not completed with supporting documentation, as required by Article 48 and 22.4, of the Law on the Constitutional Court and Rules 32 (2) (h) and 35 (5) of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, therefore it decided to summarily rejected the Referral.