Constitutional Court

KI99/2o Applicant: Tatjana Stefanović constitutional review of Judgment AC-I-16-0150 of the Appellate Panel of the Special Chamber of the Supreme Court of Kosovo on Privatization Agency of Kosovo Related Matters of 21 February 2020 and Decision Rev. No. 359/2019 of the Supreme Court of 15 January 2020

KI 99/20, resolution on inadmissibility of 8 September 2021, published on 18 October 2021

Keywords: individual referral, constitutional review of the challenged decision of the SCSC, manifestly ill-founded 

The Referral is based on Article 113.7 of the Constitution, Articles 22 and 47 of the Law no. 03/L-121 on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Kosovo and Rule 32 of the Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court.

The Applicant alleges that the Appellate Panel of the SCSC, by rejecting her appeal as ungrounded, violated her rights protected by Articles 24, 31 32 and 46 of the Constitution as well as Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the ECHR. The Applicant’s main allegation was related to the alleged violation of Article 31 of the Constitution in conjunction with Article 6 of the ECHR regarding the adoption of the challenged Judgment, namely Judgment [AC-I-16-0150] of 21 February 2020 of the Appellate Panel contrary to Articles 71 and 72 of the Law on Labor No. 03/L-212.

Regarding these allegations, namely the adoption of the challenged judgment contrary to the provisions of the Law on Labor No. 03/L-212, the Court first notes that they did not precisely clarify and adequately present the facts of the violation of constitutional rights or provisions. Moreover, the Court notes that the above allegations of violation of the Law on Labor No. 03/L-212, were clarified by regular courts.

The Court also recalls that the Applicant alleges a violation of Articles 24, 32 and 46 of the Constitution as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the ECHR, filing general allegations before the Court without accurately and adequately clarifying the facts and allegations of violation of these constitutional rights.

In the circumstances of the present case, the Applicant, beyond the reference to certain articles of the Constitution and their content, and in addition to the formulation of the general allegations, did not clearly and adequately reason how these Articles were violated by the challenged judgment. Therefore, the Court considers that the Applicant’s allegations of violation of the above articles of the Constitution fall into the category of “unsubstantiated or unsupported” claims. In the context of this category of allegations, the Court, based on paragraphs (1) (d) and (2) of Rule 39 of its Rules of Procedure and its case law, has consistently emphasized that (i) the parties have an obligation to accurately clarify and adequately present facts and allegations; and also (ii) to prove and sufficiently substantiate their allegations of violation of constitutional rights or provisions.

Therefore, based on the above and taking into account the specific characteristics of the case, the Applicant’s allegations and the facts presented by her, the Court, based on the standards established in its case law in similar cases and the case law of the ECtHR, finds that the Applicant’s allegations of violation (i) of Article 31 of the Constitution in conjunction with Article 6 of the ECHR, as a result of erroneous interpretation of the applicable law in the circumstances of her case, constitute allegations of „fourth instance”; while allegations (ii) of violation of Articles 24, 32 and 46 of the Constitution as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the ECHR constitute „unsubstantiated or unsupported ” allegations, and as such, they are manifestly ill-founded on constitutional basis, as established in Article 113.7 of the Constitution and paragraph (2) of Rule 39 of the Rules of  Procedure.