Constitutional Court

The Applicant filed a referral with the Court claiming a violation of his constitutional rights in connection with two interrelated matters: (1) a property right issue regarding a certain cadastral plot and the house built on it; and (2) a property right issue regarding a water tap located on the contested cadastral plot. He claimed a violation of Articles 3 [Equality before the Law], 24 [Equality before the Law], 31 [Right to a Fair and Impartial trial], 32 [Right to Legal Remedies], 36 [Right to Privacy], 46 [Protection of Property], 54 [Judicial Protection of Rights] and 102 [General Principles of the Judicial System] of the Constitution.
As to the cadastral plot and the house built on it, he complains, in particular, about the length of the lawsuit involving him and members of his family, allegedly initiated in August 1992. He further claims that the Municipal Court in Vushtrri had not only ignored all relevant legal proof that he is the sole owner of the cadastral plot and the house built on it. Moreover, the Municipal Court had also ignored the binding instructions of the Supreme Court and the District Court which had quashed it judgments of the on the ground that they violated the essential provisions of the Law on Contested Procedure and had instructed the municipal Court to retry the case. As to the water tap issue the Applicant complained that the Municipal Court of Vushtrri had violated the Law on Contested Procedure by ruling that the Applicant had lost the right to use the water tap, since he had not exercised the factual possession since 2004.
The Constitutional Court decided to reject the Applicant’s claim regarding the cadastral plot and the house built on it on the ground that the retrial proceedings before the Municipal Court in Vushtrri were still pending and that the Applicant had, so far, not shown that he had raised the constitutional complaints, which he now raises before the Court, in the retrial proceedings before the Municipal Court, let alone, if his claim would be rejected by that court, in appeal proceedings before the District Court, and, if again, not successful, before the Supreme Court in last instance.
As to the water tap issue the Court noted that the Applicant had no intention to submit the alleged violations of his constitutional rights which he raised in his Referral, to the Supreme Court as the court of last instance. In these circumstances, the Court concluded that the Referral was inadmissible, since the Applicant had not exhausted all legal remedies available to him under applicable law.