Constitutional Court

KI175/18 Applicant: Fllanza Kadiu, constitutional review of Judgment Rev. No. 181/2018 of the Supreme Court of 13 June 2018

KI175/18, resolution on inadmissibility of 22 January 2020, published on 21 February 2020

Keywords: individual referral, constitutional review of challenged decision of the Supreme Court, out of time

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

On 15 July 2017, the Applicant fulfilled the requirement of age for retirement, and accordingly, her then employer initiated the retirement procedure of the Applicant. The Applicant then filed the request with the employer for payment of three monthly salaries in the name of accompanying salaries for retirement, three monthly salaries as a jubilee rewards. The employer rejected this Applicant’s request. The Applicant dissatisfied with this process, namely the non-payment of jubilee pensions, initiated the court proceedings in this case.

After this, upon the Applicant’s appeal, this case went through all stages of the appeal procedure, ending with Decision Rev. No. 181/2018 of the Supreme Court of Kosovo of 13 June 2018, which was served on the Applicant on 13 June 2018.

The Applicant submitted the Referral to the Court, complaining that in her case there has been no fair and impartial trial and that she had not enjoyed equal treatment, which, in her words, was reflected in the failure to pay her jubilee salaries and pensions required by the Law on Labor. According to the Applicant, there are flaws in the reasoning of the Supreme Court judgment because the provisions of the Law on Labor, namely the collective agreement, have not been implemented.

The Court considers that the Applicant has built her case on the basis of legality, namely in determining the facts regarding the application of the Law on Labor, the Collective Agreement by the Supreme Court, which rejected her request for payment of jubilee salaries and pensions, therefore, the Court, emphasizes that the mere fact that the Applicant was not satisfied with the outcome of the Decision of the Supreme Court or the mention of the provisions of the Constitution is not sufficient to build an allegation of constitutional violation. When alleging such violations of the Constitution, the Applicant must provide reasoned allegations and compelling arguments.

In this regard, in accordance with Rule 39 (2) of the Rules of Procedure, the Referral is manifestly ill-founded on constitutional basis and, therefore, inadmissible.