Constitutional Court

KI201/18, Podnosilac Applicant: Selami Taraku, constitutional review of Judgment Rev. No. 322/2018 of the Supreme Court of 15 October 2018

KI201/18, Resolution on Inadmissibility of 8 october 2018, published on 6 November 2019

Keywords: individual referral, constitutional review of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Kosovo, manifestly ill-founded

The Applicant submitted the Referral  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 of the Republic of Kosovo.

In 2016, the Applicant filed a claim with the Basic Court in Prishtina against the University of Prishtina requesting that the University of Prishtina be obliged to pay three salaries upon retirement and three salaries as jubilee rewards.

The Basic Court in Prishtina by Judgment C. No. 2797/16 approved the Applicant’s claim and obliged the University of Prishtina to pay the monetary compensation to the Applicant, in the name of three accompanying retirement salaries and three jubilee rewards.

The Court of Appeals deciding on the appeal of the University of Prishtina by Judgment Ac. No. 4531/2017 rejected, as ungrounded, the appeal of the University of Prishtina and upheld in entirety the judgment of the Basic Court.

The Supreme Court deciding on the revition of the University of Prishtina by Judgment Rev. No. 322/2018 approved the revision of the University of Prishtina, and modified the judgments of the Basic Court and the Court of Appeals, by rejecting as ungrounded the Applicant’s claim for for payment on behalf of the compensation of three accompanying pension salaries and a jubilee reward.

The Applicant alleges that the regular courts violated his rights protected by Articles 31 and 46 of the Constitution in conjunction with Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the ECHR and the rights guaranteed by Article 10 of the UDHR, since upon his retirement he was not enabled the payment of the jubilee rewards and other benefits that come with the jubilee reward.

The Court notes that the Applicant’s allegations essentially concern the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the substantive law by the Supreme Court (namely the Law on Labor and the General Collective Agreement and the neglect of the Collective Agreement signed by the Minister of Education in UITUK).

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 the Constitutional norms and standards.

The Court also notes that the Applicant’s allegations regarding the right to property, in accordacne with ECtHR case law, no “legitimate expectation” can be said to arise where there is a dispute as to the correct interpretation and application of domestic law and where the Applicant’s submissions are subsequently rejected by the national courts.

Therefore, the Referral is manifestly ill-founded on constitutional basis and is to be declared inadmissible in accordance with Rule 39 paragraph (2) of the Rules of Procedure.