Constitutional Court

The Applicant filed a Referral pursuant to Article 113.7 of the Constitution, asserting that her rights under Articles 31, 49 and 54 of the Constitution were infringed by a judgment of the Supreme Court, which reversed a decision of the lower courts and rejected the Applicant’s claim against Raiffeisen Bank for termination of employment, arguing that it was not a fair and impartial outcome, The Court held that the Referral was manifestly ill-founded and inadmissible pursuant to Articles 102, 103 and 113.7 of the Constitution and Rule 36.1(c) of the Rules of Procedure because the Applicant merely expressed dissatisfaction with the outcome and failed to specify the manner in which her rights were violated and at which stage of the proceedings the violation occurred, citing Mezotur-Tiszacugi Tarsulat v. Hungary. The Court added that its role was limited to resolving Constitutional controversies, not factual disputes, citing Akdivar v. Turkey