Constitutional Court

KI125/19, Applicant: Ismajl Bajgora, Constitutional review of Judgment Rev. No. 73/2019 of the Supreme Court of 19 March 2019

KI125/19 Resolution on Inadmissibility, adopted on 11 March 2020, published on 17 April 2020

Keywords: individual referral, civil procedure (compensation), right to fair and impartial trial, equality before the law, right to work, manifestly ill-founded referral, inadmissible referral

The circumstances of this case are related to a work dispute and which began with the termination of the employment relationship of the Applicant by the company “Siguria”. The decision of the latter was declared invalid by the relevant Judgments of the Municipal Court and the District Court in 2006. The enforcement procedure, which was completed in 2007, recognized the Applicant’s right to return to work and granted him the right to realize the total amount of 19,799.51 euro, for the period from 17 June 2006 until  31 January 2007. Based on the case file, the Applicant was not allowed to return to work by the company “Siguria”, but the abovementioned amount of compensation was realized. The issue of compensation became again the subject of the court proceedings, initially decided by the Municipal Court in 2009, and by remanding to retrial by the District Court in 2011. In the retrial, the Basic Court determined the additional value of compensation of 17,834.22 euro for the period from 16 June 2003 until 31 January 2014, as well as pension contributions, tax on salary and relevant penalty interest, the compensation amount which were later approved by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. The Applicant challenges the findings of the regular courts before the Court, alleging violations of Articles 21 [General Principles], 22 [Direct Applicability of International Agreements and Instruments], 23 [Human Dignity], 24 [Equality Before the Law], 31 [Right to Fair and Impartial Trial] and 49 [Right to Work and Exercise Profession] of the Constitution. In essence, the Applicant alleged that the regular courts erroneously interpreted Article 80 of Law No. 03/L-212 on Labor, which, according to him, obliges the courts to compensate the claimant, namely the Applicant in “not less than double of the value of any compensation due to the employee at the time of his dismissal”, which according to him, in the circumstances of the present case, reaches the value of 364,932.00 euro, including the calculation of the respective interest.

In assessing the Applicant’s allegation regarding Article 31 of the Constitution, the Court initially clarified that (i) the allegation related to the interpretation of law, based on its case law and that of the European Court of Human Rights, fall into the category of issues of legality and as such, in principle, do not fall within the scope of jurisdiction of the Court; and moreover (ii) in the circumstances of the present case, the regular courts have not “applied the law in a manifestly erroneous manner ” and which may have resulted in “arbitrary conclusions” or “manifestly unreasonable” for the Applicant.  Consequently, the Court declared these allegations inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded on constitutional basis.

Whereas, in assessing the Applicant’s allegations of violation of Articles 21, 22, 23, 24 and 49 of the Constitution, the Court reiterated that the allegations or unreasoned and unsubstantiated appeals with arguments and evidence, based on its case law and that of the European Court of Human Rights is declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded on constitutional basis, in accordance with paragraph 2 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Procedure.

Therefore, the Court decided to declare the Applicant’s Referral inadmissible, based on Article 113 of the Constitution, Article 47 of the Law and Rule 39 (2) of the Rules of Procedure.