Constitutional review of Judgment ARJ-UZVP. no. 66/2018 of the Supreme Court, of 5 December 2018

Case No. KI 34/19

Applicant: Qamil Lupçi


KI 34/19, Applicant: Qamil Lupçi, Constitutional review of Judgment ARJ-UZVP. no. 66/2018 of the Supreme Court, of 5 December 2018

KI34/19, Resolution on Inadmissibility of 25 November 2020, published on 24 December 2020

Key words: individual referral, constitutional review of the challenged judgment of the Supreme Court, manifestly ill-founded

The Referral is based on Article 113.7 of the Constitution, Articles 20, 22 and 47 of 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.

On 11 December 2015, by Decision no. 389 of the Ministry of Labor and Social Welfare (hereinafter: MLSW), of 7 December 2015, the Applicant’s employment relationship was terminated due to having reached the age limit of 65, namely the retirement age.

The Applicant initiated administrative proceedings against Decision no. 389 of the MLSW, of 7 December 2015 and subsequently filed a claim with the Basic Court stating that prior to the rendering of decision on retirement, the MLSW was obliged under the Civil Service Law to notify the Applicant 6 months in advance about meeting the retirement conditions.

This court procedure has gone through all stages of the proceedings before the regular courts and was concluded by a final judgment of the Supreme Court, whereby the Applicant’s appeal was considered prescribed because the Applicant’s request was unfounded and there was supported the position of the regular courts that on the basis of the legislation the claimant’s employment relationship has ended because the latter had reached the age of 65, and the employment relationship ends regardless of the submission or non-submission of the notice.

The Court notes that the Applicant reiterates the same allegations which he has made before the regular courts, which, in essence, concern the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the substantive law by the Supreme Court.

In this regard, the Court emphasizes that the interpretation of substantive and procedural law is a primary duty and falls within the jurisdiction of the regular courts (the question of legality). The role of the Constitutional Court is only to determine whether the effects of such an interpretation are in accordance with Constitutional norms and standards.

The Court considers that the Applicant has not substantiated the allegations that the relevant proceedings were in any way unfair or arbitrary and that the challenged decision violated the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, the ECHR and the UDHR.

Consequently, the Applicant’s Referral must be declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded on constitutional basis, pursuant to Rule 39 (2) of the Rules of Procedure.


Qamil Lupçi

Type of Referral:

KI – Individual Referral

Type of act:


Referral is manifestly ill-founded

Type of procedure followed before other institutions :