Constitutional Court

KI77/19, Applicant: Musa Islami, Constitutional review of Judgment AA. No. 99/2018 of the Court of Appeals of 12 February 2019

KI77/19, Resolution on inadmissibility, of 10 June 2020, published on 17 July 2020

Keywords: individual referral, equality before the law, manifestly ill-founded referral

The Applicant filed a lawsuit with the Basic Court in Prishtina, against the Decision [A/02/589/2014] of the Independent Oversight Board for the Civil Service of the Republic of Kosovo, on the basis of which the Applicant’s request to be treated with the same salary by the Ministry of Finance as the other head of the division within the same Department, was rejected as out of time.

The Basic Court by the Judgment [A. No. 328/15] rejected the Applicant’s lawsuit as ungrounded, considering the Decision [A/02/589/2014] of the Independent Oversight Board for the Civil Service of the Republic of Kosovo, as fair and lawful.

Following the Applicant’s appeal against the aforementioned Judgment, the Court of Appeals by Judgment [AA. No. 99/2018] rejected as ungrounded the Applicant’s appeal considering the Judgment of the Basic Court in Prishtina [A. No. 328/15] as regular and entirely based on law.

The Applicant alleged before the Constitutional Court that his rights guaranteed by Articles 3 [Equality Before the Law], 7 [Values], 28 [Prohibition of Slavery and Forced Labor] and 54 [Judicial Protection of Rights] of the Constitution have been violated.  More specifically, the Applicant alleged that he was not treated equally because the Ministry of Finance had not leveled the Applicant’s salary, even after he was appointed Acting Head of the Central Harmonization Division for Financial Management and Central Harmonization Control.

The Constitutional Court considered that the Applicant did not substantiate the allegations that the respective proceedings were in any way unfair or arbitrary and that the challenged decision violated the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. The Constitutional Court concluded that in accordance with Article 113.7 of the Constitution, Article 20 of the Law, and in accordance with Rule 39 (2) of the Rules of Procedure, the Applicant’s Referral was manifestly ill-founded.