Constitutional Court

KI189/18, Applicant: Osman Mazreku, Constitutional Review of the Resolution of the Court of Appeal of Kosovo, Ac.no. 3034/18, of 6 September 2018 

KI189/18, Resolution  of 22 January 2020, published on 19 February 2020 

Keywords: individual referral, manifestly ill-founded referral 

The Applicant, as a consequence of a decision terminating his employment relationship, had initiated the relevant proceedings before the regular courts. The first judgment which was enforced in the amount of € 2,941,30, through Resolution E.no.1718/12, in favour of the Applicant, was Judgment C.no.811/09, of the Municipal Court in Prizren, upheld by another Judgment of the District Court in Prizren, AC.no. 236/2011. Since these Judgments were amended through revision filed by the employer, from this, the counter-enforcement and retrial proceedings regarding the case had been initiated. The entire proceedings had been completed in the retrial by Resolution of the Basic Court C.no.1282/15 of 15 February 2016, while the final decision in the enforcement proceedings was Resolution of the Court of Appeal Ac.no.3034/18 of 6 September 2018.

The Applicant essentially complains before the Constitutional Court about the court costs incurred to him, and states that the regular courts have not reasoned their decisions regarding the issue of payment of court costs, and claims that in his case, the provisions of the Law on Enforcement Procedure and the Law on Contested Procedure should have been applied.

The Court, addressing the Applicant’s allegations, initially stated that based on the practice of the European Court of Human Rights, Article 6, paragraph 1, obliges courts to reason their decisions, however, this cannot be interpreted in such a way that from the courts be required a detailed answer to each allegation, and in the Applicant’s case the regular courts have explained which document constitutes an enforcement title, and how the court costs have been calculated.

On the other hand, regarding the Applicant’s claims as to which law should be applied in his case, the Court considered these claims to be claims of legality, and stated that it is not the duty of the Constitutional Court to deal with errors of fact and of law allegedly committed by the regular courts when assessing evidence or application of law (legality), unless and insofar as such errors may have violated the rights and freedoms protected by the Constitution (constitutionality). The Court also explained to the Applicant that it is the duty of the regular courts to interpret and apply the relevant rules of procedural and substantive law.

Consequently, the Court concludes that the Referral is manifestly ill-founded on constitutional grounds and is declared inadmissible.