Constitutional Court

KI95 / 19, Applicant: Ruzhdi Bejta, constitutional review of Judgment Rev. no. 54/2019 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kosovo, of 11 March 2019

KI95/19, Resolution on Inadmissibility of 8 October 2019, published on 29 October 2019

Keywords: Individual referral, contested procedure, inadmissible referral

The Applicant is Ruzhdi Bejta residing in Prishtina, who alleged that injustice had been made to him in the job vacancy procedure for selection of directors and deputy directors announced by the Municipality of Prishtina – Directorate of Education, of 18 October 2012. The Applicant had applied for the position of Director of Secondary Medical School “Dr. Ali Sokoli” in Prishtina, but was not selected. He had complained to the Complaints Commission at the Ministry of Education, from which he had received an answer stating that they were not competent for the hiring and election of school directors. He also submitted a claim to the Basic Court in Prishtina, which rejected his claim as unfounded. Also, his appeal filed with the Court of Appeals respectively the revision submitted to the Supreme Court was rejected as ungrounded.

The Applicant challenged the Judgment Rev. no. 54/2019 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kosovo, of 11 March 2019 at the Constitutional Court, and alleged that this Judgment violated his rights guaranteed by Articles 23 [Human Dignity], 24 [Equality before the Law], 31 [Right to Fair Trial and Impartial] of the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo and Article 6 [Right to a fair trial] of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

The Court noted that the Applicant failed to accurately clarify his allegations for a violation of the constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedoms and consequently failed to fulfill the requirements stipulated by Article 48 of the Law in conjunction with Rule 39 (1) (d) of the Rules of Procedure.

Therefore, the Court found that the Applicant’s Referral does not accurately specify and does not adequately present allegations for a violation of his rights and as such the Referral must be rejected due to the failure to meet the admissibility criteria set out in Article 48 of the Law in conjunction with Rule 39 (1) (d) of the Rules of Procedure.