Constitutional Court

KI83/18 Applicant: Ivica Milošević, Constitutional Review of  Judgment AC-I-17-0402 of the Appellate Panel of the Special Chamber of the Supreme Court of Kosovo on Privatization Agency of Kosovo Related Matterrs, of 22. February 2018

KI83/18, Resolution on Inadmissibility of 10 September 2019, published on 18 October 2019

Keywords: Individual referral, constitutional review of challenged judgment of the Special Chamber of the Supreme Court, request to impose interim measure, manifestly ill-founded

The referral is based on Article 113.7 of the Constitution, Articles 27 and 47 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Kosovo and Rules 32 and 56 of the Rules of Procedure  of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Kosovo.

On 14 September 1982, Miroslav Milosevic (hereinafter: the Applicant’s father) concluded a contract on the voluntary exchange of immovable property [Vr. no. 3008/82] with the Public Enterprise PIK “Kosova-export“ (hereinafter: PIK “Kosova-export“). The subject of the contract was the exchange of the cadastral parcel (1338/2) owned by the applicant for the cadastral parcel (1692/2) in the owenrship of PIK “Kosova-export“.

Subsequently, PIK “Kosova-Export“ on the basis of the mentioned contract entered into possession of parcel no.1338/2 and made the change of ownership in the cadastral records. However, the Applicant’s father did not carry out the change of ownership of the property no. 1692/2 in cadastral records.

On 10 December 2012, the Applicant’s father submitted to the Special Chamber of the Supreme Court on  Privatization Agency of Kosovo Related Matters  (hereinafter: the Special Chamber of the SCSC) a claim seeking annmulment of the contract  Vr. no. with the proposal to impose the interim measure  and thereby prevent the Privatization Agency of Kosovo (hereinafter: PAK) from selling the property owned by PIK “Kosova-export“, specifically, cadastral parcel no. 1338/2.

On 3 April 2015, the claimant’s father passed away, after which the claimant was declared the sole heir.

The Specialized Panel dismissed the applicants’ claim for annulment as unfounded because the statutory limitations period had expired.

The Applicant submitted an appeal to the Appellate Panel against the judgment of the Specialized Panel.

The Appellate Panel rejected the Applicant’s appeal and upheld the decision of the Specialized Panel.

The Applicant claims that the regular courts have misinterpreted the facts and the law, which resulted in violation of Article 46 of the Constitution.

The Court notes that the Applicant did not substantiate that the challenged decisions violated his rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.

The Court considers that the Applicant did not present facts showing that the decisions of the regular courts have in any way caused a violation of his constitutional rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

Accordingly, the Court considers that the Referral is manifestly ill-founded on constitutional basis and, therefore, inadmissible.