Constitutional Court

KI236/19, Applicant: Hamdi Kuleta, Constitutional review of Decision No. AC-I-14-0339-A0001 of the Appellate Panel of the Special Chamber of the Supreme Court of Kosovo on Privatization Agency of Kosovo Related Matters, of 29 November 2019

KI236/19, Resolution on Inadmissibility, of 22 April 2020, published on 7 May 2020

Keywords: individual referral, right to fair and impartial trial, right to legal remedies, court fee, manifestly ill-founded

The Applicant filed a lawsuit with the Specialized Panel of the Special Chamber of the Supreme Court against Decision [PRN047-0221] of the Liquidation Authority of the SOE “Amortizatorët” of the Privatization Agency of Kosovo claiming that the allocation of funds by the management of the SOE “Amortizatorët”, collected from the rent of the premises of the SOE “Amortizatorët” for the employees of the enterprise, was done arbitrarily, unequally and without criteria. The Specialized Panel, by Decision [C-IV-13-2814], decided to reject the Applicant’s claim and ordered the Applicant to pay the court fee. Following the appeal filed by the Applicant, the Appellate Panel, by Decision No. [AC-I-14-0339-A001] found that the appeal of the Applicant against Judgment C-IV-13-2814 of the Specialized Panel is considered withdrawn after the Applicant had not paid the court fee.

The Applicant alleged before the Constitutional Court that his rights guaranteed by Articles 31 [Right to Fair and Impartial Trial] and 32 [Right to Legal Remedies] were violated. More specifically, the Applicant alleged that the Appellate Panel, contrary to the legal provisions, considered the appeal of the Applicant withdrawn and thus violated the right to fair and impartial trial as well as the right to legal remedies.

The Court considered that the Applicant did not submit evidence, facts and arguments indicating that the proceedings before the Appellate Panel had in any way constituted a constitutional violation of his constitutional rights guaranteed by the Constitution, invoked by the Applicant. Therefore, the Constitutional Court concluded that in accordance with Article 113.7 of the Constitution, Article 48 of the Law, and in accordance with Rule 39 (2) of the Rules of Procedure, the Applicant’s Referral was manifestly ill-founded.