Constitutional Court

KI126/18, Request for constitutional review of Judgment Rev. No. 197/2018 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kosovo, of 13 June 2018

KI126/18, Council of the Islamic Community in Gjakova

Resolution on Inadmissibility of 5 February 2020, published on 18 March 2020

Keywords: Individual referral, manifestly ill-founded, Council of the Islamic Community in Gjakova

The Applicant is the Council of the Islamic Community in Gjakova. The dispute related to the case concerned two immovable properties that in the 1950s were shops on a central street in the city of Gjakova. The latter were owned by the Islamic Community of Gjakova; however, on an unspecified date, they were seized by the then public authorities and turned into public pavement. Such situation exists today. In 2003, the Islamic Community of Gjakova re-updated its original lawsuit of 1997, in which, by specifying the lawsuit, it requested the regular courts to approve the statement of claim for compensation of damage for the two properties [former – shops] in question in the total amount of 17,750.00 euro. The Municipality of Gjakova, as a party sued by the Applicant, challenged the claim by raising the allegation that in the present case we are dealing with an “absolute statutory limitation” of the claim because the Applicant filed a complaint after 41 (forty one) years to seek the claimed rights.

The regular courts, the Basic Court, the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, essentially and on the same line of reasoning, agreed with this objection of the Municipality of Gjakova and decided that, in fact, in the present case we are dealing with an absolute statutory limitation of the claim. Consequently, the Applicant’s statement of claim was rejected on the basis of absolute statutory limitation. The Applicant disagrees and does not consider that the property rights claims may be prescribed and, therefore, it challenges the decision of the regular courts before this Court.

Having dealt with all the Applicant’s allegations, the Court unanimously decided that: (i) the Applicant’s allegations of violation of Article 31 of the Constitution in conjunction with Article 6 of the ECHR with regard to the reasoning of the court decisions are manifestly ill-founded on constitutional basis, and as such, are to be rejected as inadmissible in accordance with Article 113.7 of the Constitution and Rule 39 (2) of the Rules of Procedure; (ii) the Applicant’s allegations of violation of Article 46 of the Constitution regarding the property right are manifestly ill-founded on constitutional basis and as such are to be rejected as inadmissible based on Article 113.7 of the Constitution and Rule 39 (2) of the Rules of Procedure; (iii) the Applicant’s allegations of violation of Article 54 of the Constitution regarding the issue of judicial protection of rights are not adequately clarified and as such are to be rejected in accordance with Article 48 of the Law in conjunction with Rule 39 (1) (d) of the Rules of Procedure.