Constitutional Court

KI139/20, Applicant: Ilir Millaku, Constitutional review of Decision Ac. no. 901/19 of the Court of Appeals, of 20 May 2020

KI139/20, resolution of 21 October 2021, published on 8 November 2021

Keywords: individual referral, enforcement procedure, equality before the law, right to a fair trial, judicial protection of rights, manifestly ill-founded referral, inadmissible referral 

Due to unpaid debts to the electricity distribution company, the Applicant concluded with the latter the contract for payment of debt from 2008, this contract provided that by non-payment of three consecutive installments, the debtor will be considered that he has not paid the relevant installments (relevant amount). Since the Applicant has not paid the relevant installments provided in the contract, the electricity distribution company has initiated the enforcement procedure.

This enforcement procedure went through all stages and was reviewed by the regular courts, and in the end the Court of Appeals rejected the Applicant’s allegations and the fairness and legality of the enforcement procedure in entirety.

The Applicant also submitted a proposal to initiate a request for protection of legality, but the State Prosecutor informed the Applicant that his proposal was not accepted due to insufficient legal basis.

The Applicant challenged the constitutionality of Decision Ac. no. 901/19 of the Court of Appeals, of 20 May 2020, alleging violation of the rights guaranteed by Article 3 [Equality Before the Law], Article 24 [Equality Before the Law], Article 31 [Right to Fair and Impartial Trial], Article 32 [Right to Legal Remedies] and Article 54 [Judicial Protection of Rights] of the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo (hereinafter: the Constitution), as well as Article 6 (Right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter: ECHR).

After examining the Applicant’s Referral in its entirety, the Court noted that the Applicant in his Referral alleges that the challenged decisions violated Article 3, Article 31, Article 32 and Article 54 of the Constitution, as well as Article 6 of the ECHR.

With regard to the alleged violation of the rights guaranteed by Article 31 of the Constitution and Article 6 of the ECHR as a result of erroneous interpretation of the provisions of the LOR, the Court found that this part of the allegations are considered as “fourth instance” allegations and as such they reflect allegations at the level of “legality” and, therefore, they are manifestly ill-founded on constitutional basis.

With regard to the Applicant’s allegation of unequal treatment, the Court finds that this Applicant’s allegation relates to “unsubstantiated or unsupported” allegations and as such the Court on a constitutional basis declares them a manifestly ill-founded and, therefore, unacceptable.

Regarding the allegations of violation of the rights guaranteed by Articles 32 and 54 of the Constitution, these allegations fall into the category of “unsubstantiated or unsupported” allegations because the Applicant only mentions these provisions of the Constitution, but does not explain how they have been violated.

Therefore, the Court concludes that the Referral in entirety is to be declared as manifestly ill-founded and, therefore, inadmissible on constitutional basis, in accordance with Rule 39 (2) of the Rules of Procedure.