Constitutional Court

KI14/19, Applicant: Xhemajl Sylejmani, constitutional review of Decision Rev. No. 290/2018 of the Supreme Court of 10 September 2018

KI14/19, Resolution on Inadmissibility of 28 May 2019, published on 1 July 2019

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, Articles 47 of the Law No. 03/L-121 on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Kosovo and Rule 32 of the Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court.

In the period from 2004 to 2009, the Applicant was employed in the Municipality of Viti, according to the fix term contract, which was extended several times.

The Municipality of Viti by Notice offered to the Applicant a new contract foreseeing the change of his previous working place to the working place of operator – dispatcher at the same Directorate with the same coefficient and the same amount of personal income. By the same Notice the Applicant was informed that the non-signing of the contract would result in the termination of the employment relationship.

After this, the Municipality of Viti, by its Decision terminated the Applicant’s employment relationship due to the fact that he did not sign a new employment contract, which was offered to him

Subsequently, the Applicant initiated against the Municipality of Viti the administrative procedure as well as the administrative dispute that went through all stages before the regular courts. This court dispute culminated in the judgment of the Court of Appeals rejecting the Applicant’s statement of claim, while the Supreme Court rejected as ungrounded the Applicant’s request for revision and upheld the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

The Applicant submitted for the first time in 2013 the Referral to the Court, alleging that by Judgment [Rev. No. 302/2012] of 3 June 2013, the Supreme Court violated his rights protected by the Constitution, Articles 21, 24, 32 and 49. This Referral was registered under the number KI 155/13.

The Court in Resolution KI155/13, concluded that the facts presented by the Applicant do not in any way justify the allegation of violation of the constitutional rights and that the Applicant did not sufficiently substantiate his allegations, therefore, Referral KI 155/13 was declared inadmissible.

Subsequently, the Applicant submitted to the Court of Appeals a proposal to reopen proceedings in relation to the case of the Municipal Court in Viti, which the Court considered in the case KI 155/13. This proposal culminated in the decision of the Court of Appeals that rejected the proposal of the Applicant to repeat the proceedings, while the Supreme Court rejected as ungrounded the Applicant’s request for revision and upheld the decision of the Court of Appeals.

The Applicant alleges that the regular courts, by rejecting his request for reopening the proceedings, violated his rights protected by Article 31, Article 49 and Article 54 of the Constitution, not stating that the Court had already dealt with this case.

The Court considers that the Applicant’s request complaining of a rejection by the regular courts to repeat the proceedings as such is incompatible ratione materiae with Article 31 of the Constitution in conjunction with Article 6 paragraph 1 of the Convention.

The Court will not deal with the consideration of the Applicant’s further allegations because he did not justify the violation of the rights guaranteed by Articles 49 and 54 of the Constitution.

Therefore, the Applicant’s Referral is incompatible ratione materiae on constitutional basis, and is to be declared inadmissible.