Constitutional Court

KI119 / 19, Applicant: Privatization Agency of Kosovo (PAK), Constitutional review of Decision APP-UPP.no.1/2018 of the Supreme Court, of 26 February 2019 

KI119/19, Resolution on Inadmissibility, of 2 September 2020, published on 28 September 2020

Keywords: individual referral, administrative procedure, right to fair trial, manifestly ill-founded referral, inadmissible referral

The Applicant has challenged before the Constitutional Court the constitutionality of the Decision [APP-UPP.no.1/2018] of the Supreme Court, of 26 February 2019, alleging a violation of its rights guaranteed by Articles: 31 [Right to Trial Fair and Impartial], 32 [Right to Legal Remedies], 54 [Judicial Protection of Rights], of the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo (hereinafter: the Constitution), and Article 6 [Right to a fair trial] and Article 1 of Protocol no. 1(Protection of Property) of the European Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter: the ECHR). The Court, having assessed the Applicant’s allegations regarding the violation of the right to fair trial, noted that the Supreme Court had not recognized the Applicant’s legitimacy as an authorized party, thus deciding to uphold its Judgment [ARJ. UZVP.no.31/2017] of 10 May 2018. The Applicant’s request was dismissed as “inadmissible” for procedural reasons and without going into the merits of the request. In this respect the Court found that there is nothing to indicate and prove that the Supreme Court in this case has violated the Applicant’s rights guaranteed by Article 31 of the Constitution and Article 6.1 of the ECHR, because the Decision of the Supreme Court is clear and in terms of final findings and conclusions. Whereas as regards the allegation related to the erroneous interpretation of the applicable law, the Court found that the allegations for  erroneous interpretation of the law allegedly made by the regular courts, relate to the field of legality and as such, are not in jurisdiction of the Court, and therefore, in principle, the Court cannot consider them.

For this the Applicant alleged that the challenged Decision also violates its rights guaranteed by Articles 32 and 54 of the Constitution and Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 of the ECHR. However, the Applicant only mentions these respective articles, but fails to  justify by a single word how did the challenged Decision violate the constitutional rights under Articles 32 and 54, as well as Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 to the ECHR. In this regard, the Court recalls that it has consistently emphasized that the mere mention of articles of the Constitution and the ECHR is not sufficient to build an argumentative allegation for a constitutional violation. When alleging such violations of the Constitution, the Applicants must provide reasoned allegations and compelling arguments (see, in this context, the cases of the Constitutional Court KI136/14, Applicant: Abdullah Bajqinca, Resolution on Inadmissibility, paragraph 33; KI187/18 and KI11/19, Applicant: Muhamet Idrizi, Resolution on Inadmissibility, of 29 July 2019, paragraph 73, and most recently the case KI125/19, Applicant: Ismajl Bajgora, Resolution on Inadmissibility, of 11 March 2020, paragraph 63). Therefore, also in respect of these allegations, the Court pursuant to its case law declares the Applicant’s Referral  manifestly ill-founded and consequently inadmissible.

In conclusion, the Court concluded that the Applicant’s Referral, as regards the allegations for violation of Articles: 31 [Right to Fair and Impartial Trial] 32 [Right to Legal Remedies] and 54 [Judicial Protection of Rights] of the Constitution , as well as Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 [Protection of Property] of the ECHR, must be declared manifestly ill-founded on constitutional basis and consequently inadmissible, pursuant to Rule 39 (2) of the Rules of Procedure.