Constitutional Court

KI53/21, Applicant: Limak Kosovo International Airport J.S.C., “Adem Jashari”, Constitutional review of Judgment Rev. No. 353/2020 of the Supreme Court, of 2 November 2020

KI53/21, Resolution of 20 May 2021, published on 2 June 2021

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

The dispute was initiated as a result of the termination of employment relationship of employee S.B. by the Applicant. Regarding the right to compensation and reinstatement  to work, initially the Basic Court and then the Court of Appeals, rejected as ungrounded the allegations of the claimant (person S.B.), because they considered that the Applicant informed the claimant within the set deadline that upon termination or expiration of the employment contract, the employment contract will not be extended. The conclusions of these courts, after the submission of the revision by the person S.B., were not approved by the Supreme Court, which in essence stated that the subject of the claimant’s statement of claim is not the confirmation of the existence of the claimant’s employment relationship on indefinite term, but the constitutional review of the legality of the Notice of non-extension of the employment contract, and in this case considered that the Applicant had not extended the employment contract in accordance with the Policies of the Board of Directors, Law on Labor and the Applicant’s Decision on Future Planning of Human Resources.

The Applicant in the Referral before the Court, has the following allegations: (i) alleges a violation of its right to fair and impartial trial on the grounds of erroneous application of the law; (ii) alleges a violation of its right to equality before the law, due to inconsistency of court decisions, and (iii) violation of its right to protection of property, due to the decision on compensation of salaries and reinstatement to work.

The Court, analyzing the Applicant’s allegations, considered that the Applicant has not presented evidence, facts and arguments indicating that the proceedings before the regular courts have constituted in any way a constitutional violation of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution, which allegedly violate its right guaranteed by Article 31 of the Constitution in conjunction with Article 6 of the ECHR as well as Article 24, and Article 46 of the Constitution in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 of the ECHR.