Constitutional Court

KI60/18, Applicant: Limak Kosovo International Airport J.S.C., “Adem Jashari”, Constitutional review of Judgment Rev. No. 223/2017, of the Supreme Court of Kosovo, of 27 December 2017

KI60/18, Resolution on Inadmissibility, of 6 November 2019, published on 19 December 2019.

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 was obliged to keep all employees in employment relationship for another 3 (three) years.

As a consequence, the Applicant notified the employee N.O. that the employment contract will not be renewed. The employee N.O. filed a lawsuit with the first instance court and her lawsuit was approved. On the other hand, the Applicant alleged before the regular courts that the regular courts did not take into account Article 9.18 of the PPP Agreement, according to which the Applicant undertakes to keep the employees at work for another 3 (three) years.

During the proceedings before the regular courts, the latter explained to the Applicant that as the employee N.O. had more than ten (10) years of work, in accordance with Article 10.5 of the Law on Labor, it is considered as a contract for an indefinite period of time so that for the termination of the employment contract, the established legal procedures must be followed, which according to the regular courts, were not respected by the Applicant.

In his Referral before the Constitutional Court, the Applicant alleged violation of Article 31 of the Constitution due to unreasoned decision, as well as Articles 32 and 46 of the Constitution, and reiterated the same allegations as before the regular courts.

The Constitutional Court, addressing the Applicant’s allegations, held that the latter failed to present evidence, facts and arguments showing that the proceedings before the regular courts violated his right to fair and impartial trial guaranteed by the Article 31 of the Constitution, and the Court did not consider the Applicant’s further allegations on the grounds that he alleged the violation of other rights guaranteed by Articles 32 and 46 of the Constitution as a consequence of a violation of his right to fair and impartial trial.