Constitutional Court

KI13/18 – Constitutional review of Judgment Rev. No. 235/2017 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kosovo of 7 December 2017 

KI13/18, Applicant Miranda Qerimi

Resolution on Inadmissibility of 3 April 2019

Keywords: Individual referral, manifestly ill-founded, compensation 

The Applicant challenged the Judgment of the Supreme Court through which the Applicant’s revision filed against the Judgment of the Court of Appeals was rejected, which reduced the total compensation awarded by the Basic Court in Gjilan from 9,041.00 € to 3,500.oo €.

The Applicant alleged that the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals, by their decisions, violated her rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and the ECHR. Regarding the latter, she did not cite any specific article that could have been violated – but the Court noted that in substance she complained of her right to fair and impartial trial guaranteed by Article 31 of the Constitution in conjunction with Article 6 of the ECHR. In this regard, the Applicant mainly complained that the reduction of compensation by the Court of Appeals and the confirmation of that reduction by the Supreme Court – was unconstitutional and, consequently, requested the Constitutional Court to annul the decisions of these two regular courts and to confirm the Judgment of the Basic Court which awarded the higher amount for material and non-material compensation.

The Court considered that the Applicant’s allegations raise issues of legality, as they relate to the application of the legal provisions and the assessment of the evidence on the basis of which the Applicant should be compensated for material and non-material damage caused by the insured of the Insurance Company “Kosova e Re”.  The Court recalls that such allegations of the scope of legality do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Court, and therefore, in principle, cannot be considered by the Court. In this line of reasoning, the Court underlined the “fourth instance” doctrine, stating that it cannot exceed the limits imposed on its jurisdiction, as it is the role of the regular courts to interpret and apply the pertinent rules of procedural and substantive law.

The Court therefore considered that the Applicant did not prove that the proceedings before the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals were unfair or arbitrary, or that her fundamental rights and freedoms protected by the Constitution were violated as a result of erroneous interpretation of the substantive law.

In conclusion, pursuant to Article 48 of the Law and Rule 39 (2) of the Rules of Procedure, the Referral is manifestly ill-founded on constitutional basis and, therefore, inadmissible.