Constitutional Court

KI94/18, Applicant: Miodrag Šešlija, Constitutional review of Judgment GSK-KPA-A-211/15 of the Supreme Court – of the Appellate Panel of the Kosovo Property Agency, of 21 February 2018

KI94/18, Resolution on Inadmissibility of 10 April 2019, published on 15 May 2019.

Keywords: individual referral, resolution on inadmissibility, maniestly ill-founded

The Applicant stated in the referral that the KPCC and the Appellate Panel of the KPA have erroneously interpreted and applied the provisions of Article 11.4. of UNMIK Regulation No. 2006/50, and that, therefore, they could not take into consideration his arguments and evidence he had submitted and presented, by which he proves that he was entitled to the right to the said property.

The Applicant further alleged that such a position of the KCCP and of the Appellate Panel of the KPA violated his rights guaranteed by Article 31 [Right to Fair and Impartial Trial] and Article 46 [Protection of Property] of the Constitution as well as the rights provided by Article 6 (Right to fair trial) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Protection of Property) of the ECHR.

The Court notes that the Applicant has conducted two court proceedings relating to the immovable property in question.

As to the first court proceedings, the Court found that it started in 2005 and was completed on 26 March 2007, when the subject of the Applicant’s dispute was resolved by the final decision HPCC/REC/94/2007. By the same decision, the Applicant was recognized one aspect of the property in the form of compensation, which he could exercise as an Applicant of the C category in accordance with Article 4 of UNMIK Regulation 2000/60.

The Court further noted that the Applicant commenced the second court proceeding on 23 November 2007, when he filed the claim with the KPA requesting confirmation of the right to use the immovable property, namely the apartment, the Court concludes that the second court proceeding was completed on 21 February 2018, by Judgment GSK-KPA-A-211/15 of the Appellate Panel of KPA, rejecting the Applicant’s appeal as ungrounded.

In addition, the Court found that the Applicant did not provide relevant arguments to justify his allegations that in the second court proceedings in any way there has been a violation of the constitutional rights invoked by him, apart from the fact that he was dissatisfied with the outcome of the proceedings in which the challenged decision and judgment were rendered

Therefore, the Applicant’s Referral is manifestly ill-founded on constitutional basis and as such is to be declared inadmissible in accordance with Rule 39 (2) of the Rules of Procedure.