Constitutional Court

KI216/19, Applicant: Selim Sejdiu, Constitutional review of  Decision Rev. no. 407/2018 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kosovo, of 11 December 2018

Selim Sejdiu KI216 / 19 – Resolution on Inadmissibility, adopted on 29 April, 2020, published on 14 May 2020 

Keywords: individual referral, “Ngritja e Zërit”, war damages, manifestly ill founded referral

The Applicant had filed a claim with the Basic Court in Mitrovica- Branch in Skenderaj, against the Government of Serbia, for compensation of damages caused to him during the war.

The regular courts were declared incompetent to decide on the matter, and in the end, the Supreme Court, by referring to the relevant provisions of the Law on Contested Procedure, reasoned that in these cases apply the norms of international law, for which disputes the domestic courts are not competent to decide, as the competent court to decide in this legal matter is the court in the territory of which the seat of the Assembly of Serbia is located.

The Applicant alleges before the Constitutional Court that his constitutional rights foreseen by the Constitution, namely Articles 21, 22, 53 and 54 have been violated. The Applicant had three main categories of allegations: (i) the application of the “per loci” principle (ii) the obligation to comply with international human rights standards as well as (iii) his right to judicial protection of rights and his right of access to justice.

The Constitutional Court, after having examined the Applicant’s allegations, reasoned that the conclusions of the regular courts were reached following a detailed examination of all the arguments and interpretations submitted by the Applicants and that the latter was given the opportunity at all stages of the procedure to present the legal arguments and interpretations which he considers important for his case. The Constitutional Court also recalled the case law of the ECtHR in several cases where procedural barriers imposed by the principle of sovereign immunity of states in relation to judicial proceedings that may be conducted against a state in the domestic courts of another state have been emphasized. The Court also considered it important to emphasize the fact that the regular courts of Kosovo did not adjudicate on the right of the Applicant to seek damages, but only in respect of the territorial jurisdiction of the courts of Kosovo to conduct proceedings against another state.

Consequently, the Constitutional Court found that the Referral is manifestly ill-founded on constitutional basis and that it must be declared inadmissible.

The Court finds that the Referral is manifestly ill-founded on constitutional basis and in accordance with Article 113.1 and 113.7 of the Constitution, Article 20 of the Law and Rules 39 (2) and 59 (2) of the Rules of Procedure.