Constitutional Court

KI17/20, Applicant: Rrahim Ramadani, Constitutional review of Decision Rev.A.U.no.7/ 2019 of the Supreme Court of 14 November 2019

KI17/20, resolution on inadmissibility of 22 July 2021, published on 20 August 2021

Keywords: individual referral, constitutional review of the challenged decision of the Supreme Court, manifestly ill founded.

The Referral is based on 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.

The Applicant has submitted a Referral to the Court in relation to his case for the fourth time, thus challenging various decisions of the regular courts.

As regards the concrete  case, in 2015 the Applicant once again tried  to raise the issue of his reinstatement  to his previous job position and payment of the salary difference before the Basic Court in Prishtina, but the Basic Court dismissed the Applicants’ claim, by reasoning  that it was a matter for which an administrative conflict cannot be initiated. The Court of Appeals rejected the Applicant’s appeal and fully upheld the decision of the court of the first-instance, while the Supreme Court rejected the Applicant’s request for revsison  as inadmissible, having ascertained that the parties can not submit a revision against the final form decisions for aministrative matters of the second instance.

As regards the present case, the Court notes that the essence of the Referral relates to the Applicant’s allegations for a violation of the rights guaranteed by Article 31 [Right to Fair and Impartial Trial] of the Constitution in conjunction with Article 6 [Right to a fair trial] of the Convention, Article 32 [Right to Legal Remedies] and Article 54 [Judicial Protection of Rights] of the Constitution, as well as Article 13 [Right to an effective remedy] of the Convention.

The Court notes that the regular court has rejected the Applicant’s claim. The regular courts, and in particular the Supreme Court, has based the reasons for the rejection of the Applicant’s claim on the relevant provisions of the LAC which it has considered relevant in relation to the circumstances of this case and in relation to the essential allegations made by the Applicant.

The Court notes that the rejection of the request by the Basic Court, the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court is directly related to the Applicant’s failure to file the request pursuant to Article 24, paragraph 1, Article 25, paragraph 1 and Article 34, paragraph 1.5 of the LAC.

In the present case, the Court recalls that the Applicant only mentions the violation of a considerable number of Articles of the Constitution and the Convention, but does not reason or explain how the violation of these Articles occurred, he only claims that the Applicant’s right has been violated “… due to non-enforcement of the decisions of the IOBCSK.” (See, the case KI166/20, cited above, Resolution on Inadmissibility, of 5 January 2021, paragraph 50).

Therefore, the Court finds that as regards these allegations of the Applicant for violation of the rights guaranteed by Articles 31, 32 and 54 of the Constitution as well as the rights guaranteed by Articles 6 and 13 of the Convention, the Court concludes that the Referral must be declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded in its entirety, because these allegations of the Applicant qualify as allegations pertaining to the category of (iii) “unsubstantiated or unjustified” claims. Therefore, they are manifestly ill founded on constitutional basis, as defined in paragraph (2) of Rule 39 of the Rules of Procedure.

Based on the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that the facts presented by the Applicant do not in any way reason his allegations for a violation of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.