Constitutional Court

KI70/17, Applicant: Rrahim Ramadani, Constitutional review of Decision CPP. No. 2/2017 of the Supreme Court of Kosovo, of 15 May 2017

 KI70/17, Resolution on Inadmissibility, adopted on 12 March 2018, published on 14. May 2018

Keywords: individual referral, civil procedure, enforcement procedure, labor dispute, request for compensation, manifestly ill-founded referral, inadmissible referral

 The Applicant challenged the Decision [CPP. No. 2/2017] of 15 May 2015 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kosovo, through which he alleged that his rights guaranteed by Article 49 [Right to Work and Exercise Profession] of the Constitution have been violated, because his request for repeating the enforcement procedure was rejected as ungrounded. The Applicant requested from the regular courts his reinstatement to work after being dismissed as a result of the education reforms and the corresponding compensation. In the initial administrative and later judicial proceedings, the Applicant had obtained the right to reinstatement to work, being allocated as a librarian and not as a teacher, and to corresponding compensation for the period during which he remained unemployed. The Applicant further continued the court proceedings to seek compensation of the pay difference between the librarian and a teacher, from the moment he lost his last job position. The regular courts rejected this request. Finally, the Applicant addressed the Supreme Court with a request to repeat the enforcement procedure, which was rejected by the Decision [CPP. No. 2/2017] of 15 May 2017. The latter is challenged by the Applicant before the Court, claiming a violation of the rights guaranteed by Article 49 of the Constitution.

The Court considered that the Applicant’s Referral had to be declared as manifestly ill-founded because the Applicant had not substantiated his allegations of a violation of Article 49 of the Constitution, as he claimed. Therefore, pursuant to Article 113.7 of the Constitution, Articles 20 and 48 of the Law and Rules 36 (1) (d), (2) (b) and (d) and 52 (2), the Referral was declared inadmissible, as manifestly ill-founded on constitutional basis.