Rating reports in Telekom: The clarification from spokesman Fadil Lepaja

Lepaja says the <x0fit deputy, Sadri Hykosman, the Legal Department has accepted the decision on the first degree of the Labour Inspectorate” and that a complaint for this case has been filed with the Executive Corps of the Labour Inspectorate, which has not yet made any decisions.

Full explanation of Fadil Lepaja:

On the subject, let us announce to you that in the case of former Sandri Hykosman, the Legal Department has accepted the decision on the first scale of the Labour Inspectorate, in which Kosovo Telecom has been fined 1,000.00 (a thousand) euros. This decision has been accepted by Kosovo Telecom on the 1802.2025.

By 2502.2025, Kosovo Telecom, according to the legal advice of the above-mentioned decision, has presented Anke to the Executive Corps of the Labour Inspectorate (TEIP). Consequently, this decision is now not the final decision and as such has been appealed to the second degree of this body, which has not yet decided.

For your information, we inform you that even other decisions that have ended in the second degree within this body, always from Kosovo Telecom St. A, sent away with indictments to annul the administrative act at the Kosovo Commercial Court.

In all these decisions, which deal with status issues from the labour relationship and labour contracts, the Commercial Court of Kosovo, as it is deciding, rightly is announcing the Labour Inspectorate as a non-competent body to handle such issues from the labour relationship, stressing that such issues are in the direct competence of the court, and in no form can the Labour Inspectorate adopt and point to the function of the judiciary.

The contractual issues and labour relations are of status nature, and are clearly defined as the exclusive competence of the court, and only it has a mandate to examine and establish for them, even in such court decisions it is clearly judged that “... The Labour Inspectorate has exceeded the boundaries of competence, which by special law are designated at another institution, in this case, the court, and by making the ruling contrary, has acted contrary to Article 5, paragraph 5 of the Labour Inspectorate Law, paragraphs 6 and 7 of the UA .n. 07/2012 and Article 70, par. 1.4 and 1.6 of the Labour Law. So, the court, based on Article 35 of the PACE, has found that the administrative act issued by the administrative body is contrary to the principle of legitimacy specified at LPPA”

Moreover, regarding the fine imposed on which, among other things, it is stressed that in the 30-day term, labour inspectors should be presented as the payment carried out “... the contrary will be initiated the final procedure” in the complaining decision we have stressed that this settlement is entirely contrary to Article 52, paragraph 1, points 1.1 of LPPA, which stresses that “An administrative act is illegal if 1.1. has been issued in a lack of authorization by a law. The lack of authorization by a law to initiate the final procedure has been regulated by Law No. 08/L)262 for changing and fulfilling Law No. 04/L-139 for the completion procedure, which has already been completed and changed and where “THE COUNTRY OF CLUE IN PROCEDU PEAKS IV E THE DOCH OF THE DECIEF Subtitles: