Constitutional Court

The Applicant filed a Referral pursuant to Article 113.7 of the Constitution, asserting that her right to work and exercise a profession under Article 49 of the Constitution was infringed by a judgment of the Supreme Court, which quashed decisions of lower courts annulling her employer’s termination of her employment. The applicant argued that the judgment of the Supreme Court was unjust because it was arbitrary and without a legal basis, The Court held that the Referral was inadmissible because she failed to exhaust remedies by appealing her dismissal to the Independent Oversight Board, which has jurisdiction over appeals against public authorities, citing AAB-RIINVEST University L.L.C. vs. Government of Kosovo, and Article 47.2 of the Law on the Constitutional Court, and because she failed to make a prima facie showing that the Supreme Court was unfair or arbitrary, citing Shub v. Lithuania. The Court noted that its role is limited to disposing of Constitutional complaints, not resolving factual disputes, citing Sevdail Avdyli and García v. Spain, and ensuring fair proceedings, citing Edwards v. United Kingdom