Constitutional Court

KI181/20, Applicant: Private company „Betoni“, constitutional review of Decision E. Rev. No. 225/20 of the Supreme Court of Kosovo of 27 July 2020

KI181/20, resolution on inadmissibility of 5 May 2021, published on 4 June 2021

Keywords: legal persons, individual referral, constitutional review of the challenged decision of the Supreme Court, manifestly ill-founded

In 1994, the Applicant entered into an agreement with M.G. on the lease of the immovable property, namely two cadastral parcels for a period of 10 years and for the purpose of performing the activities of the Applicant.

The legal heirs of M.G. filed a statement of claim with the Municipal Court in Rahovec against the Applicant requesting the termination of the lease agreement of the immovable property as well as the payment of the remaining rent.

This claim was considered by the Basic Court, which approved the request of legal heirs of M.G., terminating the immovable property lease agreement because the litigating parties failed to agree on the purchase of the facility or the purchase of the immovable property, this position was upheld by the Court of Appeals. The Applicant also submitted a request for revision to the Supreme Court against the judgment of the Court of Appeals, but it was rejected because the indicated value of the dispute in this case does not exceed € 3,000.

The Applicant alleges that the regular courts violated its constitutionally guaranteed rights by Articles 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 31, 46, 49, 53, 54, 55 and 119 of the Constitution, guaranteed by Article 6 of the ECHR, guaranteed by Article 10 of the UDHR as well as Articles 182, 183 and 184 of the LCP and Articles 375, 585 and 595 of the LOR.

The Court found that the arguments raised by the Applicant in the Referral do not in any way justify the alleged violations of the constitutional rights invoked by the Applicant and it did not substantiate the allegations of violation of the rights protected by the Constitution and the Convention. Therefore, the Court concluded that the Applicant’s allegations are manifestly ill-founded on constitutional basis, and therefore, inadmissible, both the referrals itself and the request for the imposition of interim measure, all in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 7 of Article 113 of the Constitution and paragraph (2) of Rule 39 of the Rules of Procedure.