Constitutional Court

KI97/20, Applicant: Nehat Salihu, Constitutional review of Judgment ARJ. UZVP. No. 140/2019 of the Supreme Court, of 19 November 2019

KI97/20, Resolution on inadmissibility, adopted on 26 March 2021, published on 13 April 2021

Keywords: individual referral, non-specification of challenged constitutional provisions, non-exhaustion of legal remedies, inadmissible referral

The Disciplinary Commission within the Municipality of Gjilan, by Decision 02 016-35902, of 14 April 2015, terminated the employment relationship with the Applicant in the civil service, namely dismissed him from the position of school director. This is a result of the finding by the Commission in question that the Applicant had committed a disciplinary violation, defined by the Regulation on Disciplinary Procedures. The decision of the Disciplinary Commission was confirmed by the Dispute Resolution and Complaints Commission, the IOBCSK, the Basic Court, the Court of Appeals and finally by the Supreme Court, by the challenged Judgment. Whereas, regarding his request to reinstate to his job as a teacher before his appointment to the position of director, which request was based on Article 9 of the MEST Administrative Instruction, the IOBCSK and the regular courts found that the IOBCSK is not competent to decide on the employment relationship of teaching staff, as this category of public employees does not have the status of civil servants.

The Applicant in his Referral regarding the Judgment of the Supreme Court alleges violation of the unspecified provisions of the Law on Civil Servants in the Republic of Kosovo, the Law on Labor and the Administrative Instruction of the MEST, erroneous and incomplete determination of factual situation. However, the Applicant has not clarified what rights and freedoms, guaranteed by the Constitution, he claims to have been violated by the challenged Judgment of the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the Applicant also specifies that in his case the municipal education authorities did not implement the unspecified Decision of the Labor Inspectorate for his reinstatement to work as a teacher.

The Court, after assessing the Applicant’s allegations, found that the Referral is inadmissible because: (i) with respect to the allegations in relation to the challenged Judgment of the Supreme Court, the Applicant has not specified the constitutional rights which he claims to have been violated and has not clarified the facts justifying this allegation, as established in Article 48 of the Law and Rule 39 (1) (d) of the Rules of Procedure; and (ii) with regard to the unspecified Decision of the Labor Inspectorate on his reinstatement to work as a teacher, the Applicant has not exhausted the legal remedies provided for in Article 47 and Rule 39 (1) (b) of the Rules of Procedure.