Constitutional Court

The Applicant filed a Referral pursuant to Article 113.7 of the Constitution, asserting that his rights under Articles 22, 46.1 and 46.3 of the Constitution, as well as Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, were infringed by a judgment of the Supreme Court, which affirmed a decision of the lower courts rejecting the Applicant’s claim for compensation for expropriated property, The Court held that the Referral was manifestly ill-founded and inadmissible pursuant to Article 48 of the Law on the Constitutional Court because the Applicant failed to specify what Constitutional rights and freedoms were violated, or the public authority actions related to the alleged violations, noting the absence of a prima facie showing of a Constitutional violation, citing Vanek v. Slovak Republic, The Court emphasized that its discretion was limited to disposing of Constitutional controversies, such as whether the Applicant received a fair trial, as opposed to the resolution of factual or substantive law disputes, citing Garcia Ruiz v. Spain and Edwards v. United Kingdom, noting that the Applicant had not challenged the fairness of the proceedings in the lower courts