Constitutional Court

KI 196/19, Applicant: Jetullah Deliu, constitutional review of Decision Rev. No. 216/2019 of the Supreme Court of Kosovo of 11 July 2019 

KI 196/19, Resolution on inadmissibility of 30 September 2020, published on 22 October 2020.

Keywords: individual referral, civil procedure, servitude of passage, inadmissible referral 

In the present case, the Basic Court in Prishtina rejected the Applicant’s statement of claim by which he requested to prove that the responding party, the Secondary School “Medreseja Alaudin” Prishtina, prevented the Applicant from the last factual possession of the right of passage (easement of the road) on the cadastral parcel and the Applicant’s built house. The decision of the Basic Court in Prishtina was upheld by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.

In the Constitutional Court the Applicant alleged a violation of Articles 21 [General Principles], 31 [Right to Fair and Impartial Trial], 41 [Right of Access to Public Documents], 46 [Protection of Property] and 54 [Judicial Protection of Rights] of the Constitution in conjunction with Article 6 (Right to a fair trial) and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (Protection of property) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Applicant did not provide any evidence nor did he substantiate how his fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution were violated.

The Court noted that beyond the allegation that the decisions of the regular courts are contrary to Articles 21, 31, 41, 46 and 54 of the Constitution, in conjunction with Article 6 of the ECHR, the Applicant has not submitted before the Court any concrete arguments or justification regarding the violations of his rights alleged by him.

The Court also recalled its case law according to which only the mention of an article of the Constitution, without clear and adequate reasoning as to how that right has been violated, is not sufficient as an argument to activate the machinery of protection provided by the Constitution and the Court, as an institution that cares for the respect of human rights and freedoms.

The Court concluded that the Referral is manifestly ill-founded on constitutional basis, and is to be declared inadmissible in accordance with Article 113.7 of the Constitution, Article 47 of the Law and Rule 39 (2) of the Rules of Procedure.