Constitutional Court

Case KI 1-2011, decision of 1 November 2011

Keywords: compensation (war damage), individual referral, international agreements and instruments, manifestly ill-founded referral, specification of rights violated

The Applicant filed a Referral pursuant to Articles 21.4 and 113.7 of the Constitution, asserting that his unspecified constitutional rights were infringed by a judgment of the Supreme Court, which affirmed a lower court decision rejecting on immunity grounds the Applicant’s claim for compensation related to property damage sustained during and just after war activities in 1999.

The Court held that the Referral was inadmissible pursuant to Article 113.7 of the Constitution, Article 48 of the Law on the Constitutional Court and Rule 36.2(b) of the Rules of Procedure because the Applicant failed to specify the Constitutional rights and freedoms encompassed by his claim or to submit prima facie evidence of a Constitutional violation, citing Vanek v. Slovak Republic.  The Court noted that KFOR and UNMIK forces have immunity from civil liability.  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.  The Court found that the lower court proceedings were neither unfair nor arbitrary, citing Shub v. Lithuania.