Constitutional Court

KI88/18, Applicant: Hysnije Dedinca, Constitutional review of Decision Rev. no. 124/2018 of the Supreme Court of 12 April 2018

KI88 / 18, Resolution on Inadmissibility of 8 October 2019, published on 29 October 2019.

Keywords: individual referral, constitutional review of decision of the Supreme Court of Kosovo, manifestly ill-founded

The Applicant filed the Referral pursuant to Article 113.7 of the Constitution, Article 47 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Kosovo No. 03 / L-121 and Rule 32 of the Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Kosovo.

In 2006, the Applicant filed a claim with the Municipal Court of Prishtina against the Kosovo Energy Corporation (hereinafter referred to as KEK) regarding the temporary compensation for termination of employment relationship of her late husband.

Municipal Court in Prishtina by Judgment C1. no. 400/2006 approved the Applicant’s claim and ordered KEK to pay a compensation to the Applicant in the name of the temporary salary provided by the agreement.

Deciding on the appeal of KEK, the District Court by Judgment Ac. no. 597/2008 approved, as grounded, KEK’s appeal and accordingly reversed Judgment C. no. 400/2006 of the Municipal Court in Pristina by dismissing as unfounded the Applicant’s claim regarding KEK’s obligation to pay temporary salary compensation pursuant to the Agreement. The Judgment of the District Court was served on the Applicant on 5 May 2009.

In 2018, the Applicant submitted to the Supreme Court a request for revision against the decision of the District Court Ac. no. 597/2008.

By Decision Rev.no.124 / 2018, the Supreme Court dismissed the Applicant’s revision as out of time.

The Court notes that the Supreme Court has explained in detail to the Applicant that she was legally required to submit the revision within a time-limit of thirty (30) days. The Court notes that pursuant to the LCP, the Applicant was able to present the justification for delay in the request for repetition of the procedure.

The Court concludes that the Applicant did not substantiate her allegations that the proceedings in question were in any way unlawful or arbitrary and that the challenged decisions resulted in a violation of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and the ECHR.

Therefore, pursuant to Rule 39 (2) of the Rules of Procedure, the Applicant’s Referral is manifestly ill-founded on constitutional basis and, therefore, inadmissible in relation to the violation of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and the ECHR.