Seite - 281 - in Austrian Law Journal, Band 2/2015

ALJ 2/2015 Kosovo – UNMIK accountability 281 Article 6 ECHR,21 while it considered the alleged violations of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 and of Article 1 of Protocol No. 12 to the ECHR not necessary to examine as additional issues.22 The Panel did not enter into the contradiction that the complainant had sought reinstatement into his job with IMN with the courts, while the KTA had claimed that he had not provided any evidence of legal action against the decision of the company terminating his employment,23 which could also have been considered a violation of Article 6 ECHR. In its concluding comments the HRAP recalls that ethnic discrimination requires a “vigorous reac- tion” from authorities. While it would have been for UNMIK to redress the effects of the violation found, the fact that UNMIK after the entry into force of the Kosovo constitution on June 15, 2008, had ceased to perform executive functions in Kosovo, limited its ability to provide full and effec- tive reparation and its responsibility regarding the judiciary ended on December 9, 2008, when the EU Rule of Law Mission (EULEX) assumed operational control in that area.24 Nonetheless, the Panel held that this did “not relieve UNMIK from its obligation to redress as far as possible the effects of the violation for which it is responsible”.25 Consequently, the Panel made a number of recommendations, in particular that UNMIK urges EULEX and other competent authorities in Kosovo towards a review of the claim by the Special Chamber, to make a public apology to the complainant for the failure of the Special Chamber, to take appropriate steps towards payment of adequate compensation to the complainant for the non-pecuniary damage suffered, to liaise with competent authorities in Kosovo to ensure full implementation of the Kosovo anti-discrimination law and to take immediate and effective measures to implement the recommendations of the Panel. III. Nevenka Ristić against UNMIK In the case Nevenka Ristić against UNMIK, decided by the HRAP on May 13, 2014, the Panel reached a similar result.26 In this case, a Serbian complainant employed by the socially-owned enterprise “Eximkos” for 22 years left Kosovo for Montenegro due to security reasons and was “pensioned off” in 2000. In this case, the complainant’s name was included by KTA on the list of employees eligible for sharing the proceeds from the privatization, but the Special Chamber of the Supreme Court excluded her in response to a claim filed by a group of former employees of the company, arguing that she and a number of other persons did not meet the criteria for being included. Ms. Ristić provided documents to the Special Chamber to prove that these allegations were sub- stantially wrong and claimed that she was discriminated as a non-Albanian employee. The Special Chamber found that she did not prove that she was still an employee at the time of the privatiza- tion and also “did not prove that she was discriminated”.27 21 Fillim Guga v. UNMIK, HRAP, paras. 85–87. 22 Fillim Guga v. UNMIK, HRAP, paras. 88–91. 23 Fillim Guga v. UNMIK, HRAP, paras. 20, 25, 29 and 34. 24 Fillim Guga v. UNMIK, HRAP, para. 94. 25 Fillim Guga v. UNMIK, HRAP, para. 95. 26 Nevenka Ristić v. UNMIK, Case No. 319/09, May 13, 2014, HRAP (Opinion), http://www.unmikonline.org/hrap/Eng/ Cases%20Eng/319_09%20Ristic%20Final%20opinion%2030May14.docx (last visited Aug. 21, 2015). 27 Nevenka Ristić v. UNMIK, HRAP, para. 17.