Constitutional Court

KI 109/17, Request for constitutional review of the excessive length of proceedings in the Court of Appeals of the Republic of Kosovo regarding case C. no. 0355/2011

KI 109/17, Applicant: Ejup Koci

Decision on inadmissibility of 30 May 2018

Key words: individual referral, excessive length of proceedings, manifestly ill-founded

The subject matter was the constitutional review of the excessive length of proceedings regarding adjudication of case C. no. 0355/2011 by the Court of Appeals.

The Applicant alleged violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed by Articles 22 [Direct Applicability of International Agreements and Instruments], 23 [Human Dignity] and 46 [Protection of Property] as well as those guaranteed by Article 6 (Right to a fair trial) in conjunction with Article 13 (Right to an effective remedy) of the European Convention on Human Rights. More specifically, he alleged that his claim had not been resolved by regular courts for more than 7 years, and that the proceedings were still pending in the Court of Appeals. This situation, according to him, constituted a violation of his right to a final decision within a reasonable time.

The Constitutional Court reviewed the Applicant’s request and responded to his reasons regarding the excessive length of proceedings, referring to its case law and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights. In this regard, the Court reviewed four criteria used to determine whether or not the proceedings regarding a concrete case were excessive in length. More specifically, (i) complexity of the case; (ii) Applicant’s conduct; iii) conduct of the relevant authorities; and (iv) what was at stake for the Applicant in dispute.

Having analyzed all the criteria, the Court concluded that starting from the moment they initiated the proceedings, the regular courts were active in adjudicating the matter; therefore, they did not cause any unreasonable length of proceedings. In the end, the Court found that the Applicant had not sufficiently substantiated his allegation of a violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed by the Constitution and ECHR, respectively the right to fair trial within a reasonable time limit, because the facts he presented did not, in any way, demonstrate that the regular courts denied him this constitutional right.