Constitutional Court

KI22/19 Applicant: Sabit Ilazi, Constitutional review of Judgment Rev. No. 377/2018 of the Supreme Court of 20 November 2018

 KI22/19, Resolution on Inadmissibility of 8 May 2019, published on 7 June 2019

Keywords: 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, Article 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.

The Applicant under a fixed-term employment contract was employed in the Kosovo Energy Corporation in Prishtina (KEK).

Following the conduct of the disciplinary proceeding, the Applicant was notified by KEK about the termination of the employment contract, based on the recommendation of the Disciplinary Commission, due to work irregularities and poor work performance.

Subsequently, the Applicant initiated the administrative procedure against KEK, which went through all stages before the regular courts. This court dispute culminated with the Judgment of the Court of Appeals, which rejected the Applicant’s statement of claim, while the Supreme Court rejected as ungrounded the Applicant’s request for revision and upheld the Judgment of the Court of Appeals.

The Applicant alleges that the regular courts have erroneously interpreted the facts and erroneously applied the law, which resulted in a violation of Article 31 of the Constitution.

The Court notes that the Applicant was legally represented throughout the proceedings and had the opportunity to prove his right with regard to a fixed-term contract and to present evidence that would go to his favor in the case. The Court of Appeals reasoned in detail the judgment on the merits of the case and heard both parties. In addition, the factual and legal reasons for rejecting the case are presented in detail in the judgment of the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. In these circumstances, it cannot be claimed that the regular courts have foreseen the important aspects of the case or that they did not take into account the historical background of the dispute.

Based on the reasons above, the Court concludes that the facts presented by the Applicant do not in any way justify his allegation of violation of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Therefore, the Court considers that on constitutional basis, the Referral is manifestly ill-founded and is to be declared inadmissible.