Constitutional Court

KI53/20, Applicant: Kujtim Bakija, Constitutional review of Judgment Rev No. 283/2019 of the Supreme Court of Kosovo, of 9 October 2019

KI53/20, Resolution on inadmissibility, of 17 September 2020, published on 06 October 2020

Keywords: individual referral, right to fair and impartial trial, manifestly ill-founded referral

 Based on the case file, it follows that the Applicant was employed by the Kosovo Electricity Distribution and Supply Company in the Grid Division, District in Gjakova, and on 2 February 2015, the latter, by Decision [No. 214], imposed a disciplinary measure on the Applicant “termination of employment relationship”.

 The Applicant filed a lawsuit with the Basic Court in Gjakova against the aforementioned Decision, and the latter by Judgment [C. No. 100/2015], rejected the Applicant’s lawsuit in its entirety as ungrounded as well as the request for reinstatement to working place and compensation of salaries.

Following the Applicant’s appeal to the Court of Appeals, the latter by Judgment [Ac. No. 4459/2016], rejected as ungrounded the Applicant’s appeal and upheld Judgment [C. No. 100/2015], of the Basic Court in Gjakova,

The Applicant, before the Constitutional Court, challenged Judgment Rev. No. 283/2019, of the Supreme Court of Kosovo, which rejected as ungrounded the revision of the Applicant, against the Judgment [Ac. No. 4459/2016] of the Court of Appeals of Kosovo, of 18 March 2019.

The Applicant alleged that the challenged decision violated his rights guaranteed by Article 31 [Right to Fair and Impartial Trial] in conjunction with Article 6 of the ECHR and Article 54 [Judicial Protection of Rights] of the Constitution.

In essence, the Applicant before the Constitutional Court alleged that the regular courts did not reason their decisions, by not addressing the Applicant’s allegations and did not correctly determine the factual situation and have erroneously applied the substantive law.

The Constitutional Court considered that the Applicant did not substantiate the allegations that the respective proceedings were in any way unfair or arbitrary and that the challenged decision violated the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. The Constitutional Court concluded that in accordance with Article 113.7 of the Constitution, Article 20 of the Law, and Rule 39 (2) of the Rules of Procedure, the Applicant’s Referral was manifestly ill-founded.