Constitutional Court

KI73/21, Applicant: Minire Krasniqi-Zhitia, Constitutional review of Judgment AC-I-20-0064 of the Appellate Panel of the Special Chamber of the Supreme Court on Privatization Agency of Kosovo Related Matters, of 17 December 2020

KI73/21, resolution of resolution of 29 July 2021, published on 31 August 2021

Keywords: individual referral, non-specified referral

The Applicant has worked as a journalist for the newspaper “Rilindja” from December 2000 to February 2002, for which on 22 February 2017, the Privatization Agency of Kosovo (hereinafter: the PAK) issued the decision to initiate Liquidation. Subsequently, the Applicant submitted a claim for compensation to the PAK due to early termination of employment, and thereafter to the regular courts, but such a claim was rejected by all instances.

Consequently, the Applicant, requests from the Constitutional Court the review of the last decision in her case, namely the Judgment AC-I-20-0064 of the Appellate Panel of the SCSC, of 17 December 2020, by stating that: (i) she was denied the right to compensation of 3 (three) salaries, as well as the right to compensation due to the termination of the employment contract based on Article 40.1.6.1 of the Annex to the Law on the PAK; (ii) the PAK and the regular courts have rejected her appeal; and (iii) has emphasized the following without providing a clarification in that respect “According to Section 12.2 of the UNMIK Regulation 2001/27” and the “Law on Labour No.03/L-212, Articles 70, 71, 72, 76.”

The Applicant despite the fact of having attached the decisions of the public authorities to her Referral submitted to the Court, and despite being given the opportunity by the Court’s letter, to complete her Referral and to clarify what rights and freedoms, guaranteed by the Constitution, she is alleging to have been violated, the Applicant, in addition to the references to her right to compensation of salaries, and the reference to several legal provisions, has is no way clarified what rights and freedoms, guaranteed by the Constitution, she claims to have been violated by the challenged Judgment of the Appellate Panel of the SCSC.

Consequently, the Court found that this is not sufficient to meet the requirements of Article 48 of the Law and Rule 39 (1) (d) of the Rules of Procedure. Finally, the Court finds that the Referral is inadmissible on constitutional basis.