Constitutional Court

KI15/18, Applicant: Fehmi Hasani, Constitutional review of Judgment Rev. No. 118/2017 of the Supreme Court of Kosovo of 10 October 2017

KI15/18, Resolution  of 22 July 2019, published on 29 gusht 2019

Keywords: individual referral, manifestly ill-founded referral,

The Applicant was employed at the International Airport “Limak Kosova” j.s.c. in Prishtina (the Employer). As a result of finding the disciplinary violations by the management of the Employer, the Applicant’s employment relationship was terminated by decision.

The Applicant, dissatisfied with the Employer’s decision, complains to the regular courts, and finally, the Supreme Court rejects the Applicant’s revision as ungrounded and states that the composition of the disciplinary commission, the employer’s decision and the Applicant’s actions are foreseen by the relevant regulations of the Employer and as a result, the employment relationship of the Applicant was terminated in accordance with the legal rules.

The Applicant, considering that the decisions of the regular courts violated his rights guaranteed by Articles 21, 24, 31 of the Constitution in conjunction with Article 6 of the ECHR, and Article 54 of the Constitution in conjunction with Article 13 of the ECHR and Article 7 of the UDHR filed two main allegations, namely: (i) that the judgment of the Basic Court contains essential violation of the provisions of Article 182 par. 2 item n of the LCP, and other violations such as erroneous and incomplete determination of the factual situation and erroneous application of substantive law; and (ii) suffered unequal treatment in relation to two other workers whose cases have been remanded for retrial. Regarding the latter, the Applicant brought 2 (two) Decisions of the Court of Appeals and the first page of 2 (two) Judgments of the Basic Court..

As to the first allegation, the Court clarified to the Applicant that that the complete determination of factual situation and the interpretation and application of law is the full jurisdiction of the regular courts, whereas the role of the Constitutional Court is only to ensure compliance with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and other legal instruments, noting that the decisions of the regular courts reasoned their decisions.

As to the Applicant’s second allegation, the Court explained that it would not consider the decisions of the other two (2) employees by the Applicant for two reasons: (i) there are no final decisions on those cases (ii) the Applicant has only attached these parts of the decisions of the regular courts, but has not clarified or substantiated how the cases attached are similar or comparable to his case.

Therefore, the Court decided that the Applicant’s Referral should be declared manifestly ill-founded on constitutional basis.