Constitutional Court

KI19/18, Applicant: Fatmir Syla, Constitutional review of Decision Rev. no. 237/2017 of the Supreme Court of Kosovo of 09 November 2017

KI19/18, Resolution on inadmissibility of 25 May 2018, published on 18 June 2018

Key words: individual referral, having no jurisdiction, claim, damage compensation

On 10 February 2017, the Applicant filed a material and non-material damage compensation claim with the Basic Court in Gjilan (hereinafter: the Basic Court) against the Government of the Republic of Serbia. The damage had been caused to him during the period between 10 April 1999 and 12 June 1999.

On 14 February 2017, the Basic Court, by its Decision (N. n. 37/2017), declared itself as having no territorial jurisdiction, as regards the first item of the enacting clause, and instructed the party, in the second item of the enacting clause, to file a claim with a court having territorial jurisdiction in the Republic of Serbia.

On 26 June 2017, the Court of Appeals upheld, by its Decision (Ac. no. 2041/17), the first item of the enacting clause of the Basic Court decision, whereby it had declared itself as having no territorial jurisdiction, and modified the second item of the enacting clause dismissing the Applicant’s claim.

On 9 November 2017, the Supreme Court rejected, by its Decision (Rev. no. 237/2017), the Applicant’s revision as ungrounded. The Supreme Court reasoned in its decision that in the case at hand they were dealing with a legal-property dispute, which the domestic court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate as it relates to a foreign country, and that the rules of international law are applicable in this case.

Insofar as the Applicant’s case is concerned, the Supreme Court further specified that, “… the competencies of our courts in contests involving international (foreign) elements, cannot be applied in the present case, as the latter does not involve  a foreign natural person or legal entity; it involves a foreign country, with which the Kosovo State, on the territory of which the damage was caused, has not concluded any (bilateral, etc.) international agreement on the local court jurisdiction concerning disputes of this type”.

In sum, the Court considers that the Applicant has not provided evidence, facts or arguments that would indicate that the proceedings before the regular courts had in any way constituted a constitutional violation of his rights guaranteed by the Constitution, namely Articles 21 [General Principles], 22 [Direct Applicability of International Agreements and Instruments], 53 [Interpretation of Human Rights Provisions] and 54 [Judicial Protection of Rights] of the Constitution, as well as Article 6 of the ECHR or Article 15 of the UDHR.

Therefore, the Applicant’s Referral is manifestly ill-founded on constitutional basis and must be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 48 of the Law and Rule 36 (1) (d) and (2) (d) of the Rules of Procedure.