Constitutional Court

KI76/17, Applicants: Nysret Fana and others, Constitutional review of Decision Rev. A. no. 6/2017 of the Supreme Court of Kosovo of 28 March 2017

KI76/17, Resolution on inadmissibility of 1 March 2018, published on 19 April 2018.

Key words: individual referral, constitutional review of the decision of the Supreme Court of Kosovo, administrative procedure, manifestly ill-founded

The Referral is based on Article 113.7 of the Constitution, Article 47 of Law No. 03/L-121 on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Kosovo and Rule 29 of the Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court.

The Applicants were employees of the Food and Veterinary Agency of Kosovo (hereinafter: FVAK), which terminated their employment relationship in 2011. Against this decision, the Applicants filed a complaint with the Independent Oversight Board for the Civil Service of Kosovo (hereinafter: the IOB), which ordered FVAK to reinstate the applicants to their previous job positions. FVAK did this only temporarily.

Afterwards, the applicants initiated a proceeding with the ordinary courts, which was concluded by a decision of the Supreme Court of Kosovo rejecting the request for revision of the judgment of the Court of Appeals as inadmissible, because, “[…] against a final decision of the competent court for administrative matters of the second instance, a revision cannot be submitted; therefore, this Court dismissed the request for revision of the claimant as inadmissible.” The applicants allege that the decision of the Supreme Court led to Article 49 of the Constitution being violated.

The Court considers that nothing in the case presented by the Applicants indicates that the proceedings before the regular courts were unfair or arbitrary such that the Constitutional Court would be satisfied that their rights guaranteed by Article 49 of the Constitution were violated.

The Court finds that the Applicants did not substantiate their allegations; nor did they show that there has been a violation of their rights. Therefore, based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that the Applicants’ referral is manifestly ill-founded and must be declared inadmissible.