Constitutional Court

KI 98/19, Applicant, Insurance company “EUROSIG D. D.” Request for constitutional review of Judgment E. Rev. No. 39/2018 of the Supreme Court of 8 January 2019

KI98/19, resolution on inadmissibility of 3 February 2021, published on 31 March 2021 

Keywords: individual referral, manifestly ill-founded, resolution on inadmissibility

From the Applicant’s Referral, the Court found that the main issue concerns the monetary compensation between two insurance companies, Eurosig based in Prishtina and “SUVA” based in Switzerland, which arose as a result of a traffic accident, in which two passenger vehicles participated.

The Applicant concluded an out-of-court agreement with the legal representative of the injured party regarding the amount of compensation.

As the insured of the company “SUVA”, the injured party continued medical treatment in Switzerland, whereby all insurance costs were paid by the insurance company SUVA.

In order to reimburse these costs of treatment, the insurance company SUVA submitted a request to the insurance company EUROSIG, in which it requested the reimbursement of the costs of treatment of the injured party.

Eurosig rejected the request, stating that it had settled all its obligations to the injured party in accordance with the signed out-of-court agreement.

With that in mind, the insurance company “SUVA” initiated contested proceedings against the respondent, the insurance company EUROSIG, in which it requested the monetary compensation.

That court proceeding ended with a final judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the claimant.

The Applicant submitted the Referral to the Constitutional Court alleging that the regular courts have violated his right to a fair trial in terms of an unreasoned court decision.

The Court analyzed in detail the Applicant’s allegations and concluded that the Basic Court, the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court, in the reasoning of the challenged judgments, provided satisfactory, clear and complete reasons both in terms of established facts and in application of positive legal regulations, taking into account all the circumstances relevant to the decisions in question.

Therefore, the Court rejected the Applicant’s Referral as manifestly ill-founded on constitutional basis in accordance with Rule 39 (2) of the Rules of Procedure.