Constitutional Court

KI11/18, Applicant: Kosovo Chamber of Commerce, Constitutional Review of Judgment Rev. No. 181/2017 of the Supreme Court of Kosovo, of 18 September 2017

KI11/18, Resolution on Inadmissibility of 2 March 2018, published on 20 April 2018

Key words: Individual referral, termination of employment, revision, manifestly ill founded

The person H.D was employed at the Applicant for 33 years. In 2009, the Applicant and the claimant entered into new employment contract for a period of 12 (twelve) months, after which the person H.D. was informed that her employment will not be extended.  After exhausting the internal procedures with the Applicant, the person H.D. filed a claim before the Basic Court in Prishtina requesting the annulment of Applicant’s Decisions on non-extension of her employment contract. The Basic Court rejected the claim of the person H.D. as unfounded. The Judgment of the Basic Court was confirmed by the Court of Appeals.

Against the Judgment of the Court of Appeals (Ae. No. 1674/2014), the claimant submitted a revision to the Supreme Court, on the grounds of essential violations of the provisions of the contested procedure and erroneous application of substantive law. The Supreme Court, by Judgment Rev. No. 181/2017, approved the revision of the claimant as grounded and modified Judgment Ac. No. 1674/2014 of the Court of Appeals and Judgment C. No. 3070/2013 of the Basic Court, so that it annulled the Applicant’s decisions on non-extension of the employment contract for the claimant and obliged the Applicant to reinstate the claimant to work.

The Applicant contested before the Constitutional Court the above Judgment of the Supreme Court and alleged that the Supreme Court has violated his right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and the right to appeal under paragraph 5 of Article 102 of the Constitution.

The Constitutional Court considered that the facts presented by the Applicant did not in any way justify the alleged violation of constitutional rights invoked by the Applicant, and that the Applicant has not sufficiently substantiated its allegation, in accordance with Article 113.7 of the Constitution, Article 48 of the Law and Rules 36 (1) (d) and (2) (b) and (d) of the Rules of Procedure. Therefore, the Referral is manifestly ill-founded on constitutional basis and is to be declared inadmissible.