Constitutional Court

KI31/19, Applicant: Shpresa Ferati – Duraku, Constitutional review of Judgment Rev. No. 387/2018 of the Supreme Court of 5 December 2018 

KI31/19, Resolution on Inadmissibility of 15 January 2020, published on 18 May 2020

Keywords: Individual referral, labor dispute, resolution on inadmissibility

The subject matter is the constitutional review of the challenged Judgment which allegedly violates the Applicant’s rights and freedoms guaranteed by Article 24 [Equality Before the Law], Article 31 paragraph 1 [Right to Fair and Impartial Trial], Article 49 paragraph 1 [Right to Work and Exercise Profession] of the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo, as well as the rights guaranteed by  Article 6 paragraph 1 (Right to a fair trial), Article 13 paragraph 1 (Right to an effective remedy), Article 17 paragraph 1 (Prohibition of abuse of rights), and Article 1 (General prohibition of discrimination) paragraph 2 of Additional Protocol No. 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Applicant related the abovementioned allegations to the vacancy for a job position, in which she participated and was selected as the best candidate, but the committee annulled that job vacancy.

In this regard, the Court noted that the Applicant had two groups of allegations. The first group included allegations related to the proceedings conducted before the municipal administration in Mitrovica, while the second group included allegations related to the court proceedings conducted before the regular courts.

The Court, having examined the allegations of the Applicant, the case file as well as the reasoning of the challenged decisions, concluded that there is nothing that indicate in the present case that the material-legal provisions in the present case were applied in an arbitrary or unfair manner to the detriment of the Applicant. The Court also considers that the Applicant does not provide facts that could justify the allegation that there has been a violation of the constitutional rights she invokes, therefore there are no prima facie elements that indicate that the violation of the constitutional rights under  Article 31 of the Constitution in conjunction with Article 6 paragraph 1 of the ECHR is possible, and that consideration on merits would be required, and consequently there has been no violation of other rights and freedoms which she stated in her referral.

In this regard, the Court declared the Applicant’s referral inadmissible in accordance with Rule 39 (2) of the Rules of Procedure.