Constitutional Court

KI109/18, Applicant: Limak Kosovo International Airport J.S.C., “Adem Jashari”, Constitutional review of Judgment Rev. No. 127/2018, of the Supreme Court of Kosovo, of 12 April 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.

The Applicant notified the employee B.SH. that the Applicant’s Disciplinary Commission decided to terminate the employee’s employment relationship, on the grounds that the employee committed serious disciplinary violations.

As a consequence, the employee B.SH. filed a lawsuit with the Basic Court  seeking the annulment of the decision to terminate the employment relationship and to compensate the damage. His lawsuit was approved. On the other hand, the Applicant in his appeal before the regular courts alleged that the Basic Court had erroneously determined the factual situation, claiming that the representative of the Independent Trade Union had been invited, but the latter did not participate.

During the proceedings before the regular courts, the latter explained to the Applicant that in the event of termination of the employment relationship of the employee B.SH, the composition of the Applicant’s Disciplinary Commission was incomplete, as the representative of the Trade Union was absent, and that from the evidence presented by the Applicant,  it followed that the representative of the Independent Trade Union was not invited.

In his Referral before the Constitutional Court, the Applicant alleged violation of Article 31 of the Constitution due to unreasoned decision, as well as Article 32 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.