Constitutional Court

The Applicant filed a Referral pursuant to Article 113.7 of the Constitution, asserting that his Constitutional rights were infringed by proceedings in the Special Chamber of the Supreme Court because the Chamber allegedly failed to give him an opportunity for a hearing, failed to recognize his purchase of the disputed commercial property in dispute, issued a deficient judgment and failed to give him a right to appeal, Noting the chronology, the Court held that the Referral was inadmissible pursuant to Articles 49 and 56 of the Law on the Constitutional Court (“Law”) because it was not submitted within four months of implementation of the Law. Regardless of the application of Article 50 of the Law, which extended the deadline to one year for special situations in which the Applicant was unable to submit a Referral, the Court held that the Referral was not submitted before the extended deadline, rendering it inadmissible for that reason