Constitutional Court

KI36/20, Applicant: Limak Kosovo International Airport J.S.C., “Adem Jashari”, Constitutional review of the Judgment Rev. no. 10/2018 of the Supreme Court of Kosovo , of 16 October 2018

KI36/20, Resolution on Inadmissibility, 27 May 2020, published on 23 July 2020

Keywords: individual referral, legal person, manifestly ill-founded,

The Applicant and the Government of the Republic of Kosovo had signed a Public Private Partnership Agreement (PPP), and based on this agreement the Applicant took over an obligation to keep the employment relationship with all employees  for another 3 (three) years.

As a result, the Applicant had notified the employee M.H that she will not have her employment contract renewed. Employee M.H had filed a claim with the court of first instance and her claim was approved. On the other hand, the Applicant alleges that the regular courts had not taken into account Article 9.18 of the PPP Agreement, according to which the Applicant undertakes to keep the employees at work for 3 ( three) years.

The Supreme Court by Judgment Rev. no.10/2018, of 16 October 2018, had clarified to the Applicant that since the employee MH had more than ten (10) years of work, pursuant to Article 10.5 of the Law on Labour, her contract considered as a contract for an indefinite period of time, so that even for the termination of the employment contract, the prescribed legal procedures must be respected, procedures which according to the regular courts the Applicant had failed to comply with.

The Applicant, in his Referral submitted to the Constitutional Court, alleged a violation of Article 31 of the Constitution due to the non-reasoned decision, as well as a violation of Articles 24, 32 and 46 of the Constitution, and reiterated the same allegations which it has made also before the regular courts.

The Constitutional Court, having addressed the  allegations of the Applicant, found that the latter failed to present evidence, facts and arguments showing that the proceedings before the regular courts had violated his right to fair and impartial trial, guaranteed by Article 31 of the Constitution, and the Court did not elaborate on the further allegations of the Applicant because the violations of other rights guaranteed by Articles 24, 32 and 46 of the Constitution are alleged to have occurred as a result of the violation of the right to  fair and impartial trial.