Constitutional Court

The Applicant filed a referral pursuant to the Article 113.7 of the Constitution, alleging that the Supreme Court by approving the revision exercised by the Municipality of Kacanik has violated his constitutional rights, guaranteed by Article 21 [General Principles] and Article 46 [Protection of Property], The Court in this case referred to in Article 48 of the Law and Rule 36.2 items b) and d) of the Rules of Procedure. In this regard, the Court finds that the Applicant does not indicate why and how the Supreme Court has violated his rights guaranteed by the Constitution and European Convention, nor has he provided any evidence for alleged violations of constitutional rights, In this regard, the Court found that the Applicant did not indicate why and how the Supreme Court has violated his rights guaranteed by the Constitution and European Convention, nor has he provided any evidence for alleged violations of constitutional rights, The Court had stated that it can not act as a court of fourth instance in this case, because it is the duty and obligation of regular courts to interpret and apply the pertinent rules of both procedural and substantive law. The Court in this case has mentioned the, Garcia Ruiz against Spain [GCH], no. 30544/96, paragraph 28, European Court on Human Rights [ECHR] 1999-1). Court finaly finds that the Referral does not meet the criteria of Article 48 of the Law and the Rule 36.2 (b) and (d) of the Rules of Procedure, therefore, as such is manifestly ill-founded