Constitutional Court

KI08/21 Applicant: Mirishahe Shala, Constitutional Review of the Judgment AC.no. 625/2020 of the Court of Appeals, of 9 September 2020

KI08/21 Resolution on Inadmissibility, of 2 June 2021, published on 22 June 2021

Keywords: individual referral, civil dispute, equality before the law, right to fair trial, judicial protection of rights, manifestly ill-founded referral, inadmissible referral

The Applicant before the Constitutional Court challenged Judgment [AC. no. 625/2020] of the Court of Appeals of the Republic of Kosovo, of 9 September 2020, alleging a violation of her rights, guaranteed by Articles: 3 [Equality Before the Law],   22 [Direct Applicability of International Agreements and Instruments], 31 [Right to Fair and Impartial Trial], 32 [Right to Legal Remedies],  54 [Judicial Protection of Rights] and 102 [General Principles of the Judicial System]  of the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo, as well as Articles 6 [Right to a fair trial] and 13 [Right to effective remedies] of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms .

In light of this Referral, the Court notes that the substance of the Applicant’s appeal concerned: (i) the manner of interpretation and application of the substantive law, noting that “Article 52 paragraph 1, subparagraph 1.2, of the General Collective Agreement of Kosovo and Article 53 paragraph 1, of this agreement” had not been implemented; ii) with the allegation that the regular courts have recognized the right to jubilee salaries to the employees of the municipality of Gjilan, according to the general collective agreement, with the Judgment C. no.188/2017 of 22 February 2018; (iii) the allegations of denial of remedies, and (iv) allegations of other violations of constitutional rights.

In summary, the Court finds that the Applicant’s allegations of violation of the rights guaranteed by the above-mentioned Articles of the Constitution and the ECHR are manifestly ill-founded, as they are considered as allegations falling into the first category (i) “fourth instance court” and the third category (iii) “unsubstantiated or unsupported” allegations on constitutional grounds. The Court therefore concludes that the Referral in its entirety must be declared manifestly ill-founded and therefore inadmissible on constitutional grounds, in accordance with Rule 39 (2) of the Rules of Procedure.