Constitutional Court

KI65/18, Applicant: Limak Kosovo International Airport J.S.C., “Adem Jashari”, Constitutional review of Judgment Rev. No. 254/2017 of the Supreme Court of Kosovo of 14 December 2017

KI65/18, Resolution on Inadmissibility, of 6 November 2019, published on 19 December 2019

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

On 12 August 2010, the Applicant and the Government of the Republic of Kosovo signed a Public-Private Partnership Agreement (the PPPA), and based on this agreement the Applicant was obliged to keep all employees in employment for a further 3 (three) years.

After the expiry of this period, namely on 3 March 2014, the Applicant notified the employee V.SH. that her employment contract will not be renewed.

The employee V.SH. filed a lawsuit with the first instance court and her lawsuit was approved. On the other hand, the Applicant filed an appeal with the regular courts, alleging that the regular courts did not take into account Article 9.18 of the PPP Agreement, according to which the Applicant is under an obligation to keep the employees at work for another 3 (three) years.

In the proceedings before the regular courts, the latter explained to the Applicant that since the employee V.SH. had more than ten (10) years of work, based on 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 its Referral before the Constitutional Court, the Applicant alleged a violation of Article 31 of the Constitution on the grounds of unreasoned decision, as well as of Articles 32 and 46 of the Constitution, and reiterated its 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 its right to fair and impartial trial guaranteed by Article 31 of the Constitution, and the Court failed to consider the Applicant’s further allegations on the grounds that the violations of other rights guaranteed by Articles 32 and 46 of the Constitution, it alleged as a consequence of violation of its right to fair and impartial trial.