Decisions published in September 2023

06.10.2023

In September 2023, the Constitutional Court:

• reviewed three (3) cases;
• a decision was rendered for one (1) case (the publication procedure of which is subject to further provisions of the Law on the Constitutional Court and its Rules of Procedure);

During this period, twenty-six (26) decisions were published on the Court’s website, namely (i) six (6) Judgments; (ii) fifteen (15) Resolutions on Inadmissibility; (iii) one (1) Decision on Interim Measure; (iv) one (1) Decision to Dismiss the Referral; and (v) three (3) Decisions to Reject the Referral

Judgments

_________________________________________

1. KI122/21

Applicant: Lekë Bytyqi

Published on: 5 September 2023

Request for constitutional review of the Decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kosovo [CPP. no. 1/2021 ] of 10 March 2021

The Court assessed the constitutionality of Decision [CPP. 1/2021] of the Supreme Court of 10 March 2021, related to the decision-making of the Supreme Court which granted the motion of interested parties NB, Sh.B. and AB for reopening the proceedings. The latter had initiated the Applicant’s lawsuit for confirmation of the property right, including the request for imposing a security measure, requesting to have N.B., Sh.B. and A.B., respectively, prohibited from alienating or encumbering the disputed facility until the final resolution of the respective dispute is reached. While the case regarding the lawsuit was pending reconsideration, as a result of the decision of the Supreme Court in 2016, which remanded the issue of withdrawal/non-withdrawal of the lawsuit for reconsideration to the Court of Appeals in 2021, the interested parties N.B., Sh.B., and A.B. filed a motion for reopening the proceedings before the Supreme Court, alleging new facts related to the decision of the Supreme Court in 2016. The Supreme Court granted as founded the motion of the above-mentioned interested parties to reopen the proceedings, rejecting, namely dismissing as inadmissible the revision submitted by the Applicant in 2015. The Applicant essentially alleged before the Court that there has been a violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 31 [Right to Fair and Impartial Trial] of the Constitution in conjunction with Article 6 (Right to a Fair Trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, as a result, among other things, of the violation of the principles of (i) res judicata; and (ii) equality of arms and adversarial proceedings. In the context of the circumstances of the case and based on the principles established through the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, regarding equality of arms and adversarial proceedings, the Court assessed that the Supreme Court, contrary to the constitutional guarantees for equality of arms, had issued the challenged decision without complying with the fifteen (15) day deadline for a response to the motion to reopen proceedings according to paragraph 2 of Article 237 of the Law on Contested Procedure, in violation of paragraph 1 of Article 31 [Right to Fair and Impartial Trial] of the Constitution and paragraph 1 of Article 6 (Right to a Fair Trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court considers that the outcome for the Applicant would not change even if the Court were to refer the case for reconsideration, and as a result, the Court’s finding through this Judgment, based on the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, is declarative in nature for the Applicant. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the Court’s Judgment in this case in no way prejudges the allegations made by the Applicant regarding his rights to inheritance and property that may be subject to other legal proceedings.

Notification regarding the Judgment can be read by clicking here

You can read the full text of the Judgment and summary in the official languages of the Republic of Kosovo and in the English language by clicking here

2. KI206/21

Applicant: Ukë Salihi

Published on: 5 September 2023

Request for constitutional review of the Judgment of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kosovo [Rev. no. 584/2020] of 22 April 2021

The Court assessed the constitutionality of Judgment [Rev. no. 584/2021] of the Supreme Court of Kosovo of 22 April 2021 as well as Judgment [Ac. no. 2046/17] of the Court of Appeals of Kosovo of 9 July 2020. The above-mentioned judgments were related to the Applicant’s claim against the Kosovo Police, as the latter rejected his request for equalization of his salary and the qualification of his position, regarding the performance of duties from 2010 to 2015, as Deputy Chairman of the Internal Disciplinary Committee. The Basic Court in Prishtina granted the Applicant’s claim as grounded, but the Court of Appeals amended the Judgment of the Basic Court and rejected the Applicant’s claim as unfounded. Despite the fact that the Applicant had submitted a response to the opposing party’s appeal to the Court of Appeals, the same was not considered by the Court of Appeals. Through the request for revision, the Applicant had raised, among other things, this claim before the Supreme Court, but the latter rejected it as unfounded. The Applicant alleged before the Court violations of rights guaranteed under (i) Article 31 [Right to Fair and Impartial Trial], (ii) Article 32 [Right to Legal Remedies], and (iii) Article 54 [Judicial Protection of Rights] of the Constitution in conjunction with Article 6 (Right to a Fair Trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, essentially due to: (i) failure by the Court of Appeals to consider his response to the opposing party’s complaint and, as a result, the violation of the principle of  “equality of arms”; (ii) erroneous application of the law; and (iii) lack of a reasoned judicial decision. In this regard, the Court, after elaborating on the general principles regarding the principle of “equality of arms” and the principle of “adversarial proceedings”, guaranteed by paragraph 1 of Article 31 of the Constitution in conjunction with paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and the relevant case law of the Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights, clarified that, as a result of failing to consider the response to the opposing party’s appeal, the Applicant was placed in a significantly less favourable position compared to the opposite party, and as a result, the opportunity to effectively and substantively confront the arguments and allegations made by the opposing party was taken away, in violation of the guarantees provided for under paragraph 1 of Article 31 of the Constitution in conjunction with paragraph 1 of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Notification regarding the Judgment can be read by clicking here

You can read the full text of the Judgment and summary in the official languages of the Republic of Kosovo and in the English language by clicking here

3. KO134/21

Applicant: Ramush Hajradinaj and nine (9) other deputies of the Assembly of the Republic of Kosovo

Published on: 6 September 2023

Request for constitutional review of Decision [no. 08-V-036] of the Assembly of Kosovo of 8 July 2021

The Court assessed the Decision [no. 08-V-036] of the Assembly of the Republic of Kosovo of 8 July 2020 regarding the dismissal of eight (8) members of the Radio Television of Kosovo Board (hereinafter: the RTK Board), which had been preceded by the consideration of the RTK Annual Report for 2020 in the Committee on Public Administration, Local Government, Media and Regional Development, and in the Committee on Budget, Labor and Transfers, which, after reviewing the same, recommended to the Assembly to (i) reject the approval of the RTK Annual Report for 2020; and (ii) based on the “professional incompetency” dismiss all RTK Board members. The Assembly of the Republic of Kosovo, in the same session, namely on 8 July 2021, rejected to approve the RTK Annual Report and dismissed all RTK Board members. The essence of the case is related to (i) the constitutional competency of the Assembly of the Republic of Kosovo to oversee the work of public institutions, including the Radio Television of Kosovo, which, based on the Constitution and laws, report to the Assembly and the corresponding limitations based on the Law on Radio Television of Kosovo; (ii) the independence and autonomy of the public broadcaster, not only based on the Law on Radio Television of Kosovo, but also on relevant international instruments, including those directly applicable in the constitutional order of the Republic of Kosovo on one hand, and the obligation of the public broadcaster for transparency and accountability towards the supervisory authority and the public on the other hand; and (iii) the positive obligations of the state, in this case the Assembly, to exercise its oversight competency based on the principles derived from the Constitution, the European Convention on Human Rights and other international instruments, including the Recommendations of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, to guarantee the independence of public broadcasters and freedom of media pluralism. The Court, in order to assess the Applicant’s Referral, elaborated on the general principles deriving from the case law of the European Court of Human Rights in the context of Article 10 (Freedom of Expression) of the European Convention on Human Rights; and (ii) the responses received from constitutional courts and/or relevant equivalents of the Venice Commission Forum, regarding the status/independence as well as the dismissal procedure of members of the supervisory boards/structures of public broadcasters, as well as (iii) other principles deriving from the recommendations and opinions of international institutions listed in the Judgment. The Court, after elaborating on the above-mentioned principles, found that (i) Decision [no. 08-V-036] of the Assembly of the Republic of Kosovo of 8 July 2021 on the dismissal of all RTK Board members is not in compliance with paragraph 1 of Article 7 [Values] and paragraph 9 of Article 65 [Competencies of the Assembly] of the Constitution because by dismissing the entire board of the public broadcaster for “professional incompetency”,  as determined through the examination of the above-mentioned Annual Report, the Assembly acted without a legal basis in the context of the dismissal of the Board as a whole, as a result of the rejection of the respective annual report, and consequently, in violation of the provisions of the Law on the Radio Television of Kosovo. As a result, the Court found that in rendering  the challenged Decision, the Assembly exceeded the limits of its oversight competency as defined in paragraph 9 of Article 65 [Competencies of the Assembly] of the Constitution, and furthermore, undermined the independence of the public broadcaster, whose role is essential for the freedom and pluralism of the media in a democratic society, in contradiction with the values defined in paragraph 1 of Article 7 [Values] of the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo. The Court clarified that the judgment neither has a retroactive effect nor affects the acquired rights of the third parties.

Notification regarding the Judgment can be read by clicking here

You can read the full text of the Judgment and summary in the official languages of the Republic of Kosovo and in the English language by clicking here

4. KO216/22 and KO220/22

Applicant: KO216/22, with Applicant: Isak Shabani and 10 (ten) other deputies and KO220/22, with Applicant: Arben Gashi and 9 (nine) other deputies of the Assembly of the

Republic of Kosovo

Published on: 13 September 2023

Request for constitutional review of Articles 9, 12, 46 and 99 of Law No.08/L-197 on Public Officials

The Court assessed, in its Judgment in cases KO216/22 and KO220/22, the constitutionality of the procedure followed for the adoption of Law No. 08/L-197 on Public Officials (hereinafter: the contested Law), as well as its specific provisions, according to the Applicant’s allegations. The Judgment initially clarifies that the Applicants, essentially, allege that: (i) the procedure followed for the adoption of the contested Law was in contradiction with Articles 77 [Committees] and 78 [Committee on the Rights and Interests of Communities] of the Constitution; and (ii) Articles 9 (General requirements for admission of public officials), 12 (Government of the Republic of Kosovo), 46 (Appointment and mandate of lower and middle management positions) and 99 (Transitional provisions) of the contested Law were in contradiction, among other things, with Articles 3 [Equality before the Law], 4 [Form of Government and Separation of Power], 7 [Values], 16 [Supremacy of the Constitution], 19 [Applicability of International Law], 46 [Protection of Property] and 101 [Civil Service] of the Constitution. Essentially, the Applicants alleged that the contested Law violates the principle of legal certainty and predictability through the criterion of “appropriateness” as an additional criterion for employment; it violates constitutional principles related to the civil/administrative service, with an emphasis on the independence of constitutional independent institutions, through the intervention and supervision of executive power; and it violates the fundamental rights and freedoms of public officials, particularly in the lower and middle management category, by transforming the positions of these officials from permanent to temporary, including retroactively affecting their acquired rights, thus resulting, among other things, in the lack of stability and political interference in the public administration, in contravention of the obligations of the Republic of Kosovo regarding public administration reform through the ratification of the Stabilization and Association Agreement. All arguments and counter-arguments of the parties before the Court are thoroughly reflected in the Court’s Judgment. The Judgment further clarifies that the Court: (i) limited the constitutional review of the contested Law to the scope of the contested provisions presented by the Applicants and those related thereof; and (ii) during this assessment, among other things, it elaborated and applied the general principles established by the Court, with an emphasis on the Judgment in case KO203/19, regarding the assessment of Law No. 06/L-114 on Public Officials, the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, Opinions and relevant Reports of the Venice Commission, including the feedback of constitutional courts and/or equivalent members of the Forum of the Venice Commission, as well as the fundamental principles of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD/SIGMA) for public administration. In the Court’s Judgment, the above-mentioned principles have been applied in the examination of each assessed provision of the contested Law. The Court examined the allegations made by the Applicants regarding the contested provisions and those related thereof, and decided to hold that: (i) paragraphs 2 and 5 of Article 9 (General requirements for admission of public officials)) of the contested Law are not in compliance with paragraph 1 of Article 3 [Equality before the Law] and paragraph 1 of Article 7 [Values] of the Constitution; (ii) the wording “and oversee their implementation” in paragraph 1.1 of Article 1 and paragraph 2 of Article 12 (Government of the Republic of Kosovo) and subparagraphs 1.1, 1.2, 1.5, 1.9 of paragraph 1 and paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of Article 13 (Ministry responsible for public administration) of the contested Law is not in compliance with paragraph 1 of Article 4 [Form of Government and Separation of Power] and paragraph 2 of Article 101 [Civil Service] of the Constitution; (iii) the wording “in cases provided for by this law” in paragraph 3 of Article 27 (The right to information about the employment relationship and the right to appeal); (iv) paragraph 6 of Article 27 (The right to information about the employment relationship and the right to appeal) and paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 88 (The right to appeal of the public service employee) of the contested Law are not in compliance with Articles 32 [Right to Legal Remedies] and 54 [Judicial Protection of Rights] of the Constitution; (v) paragraph 6 of Article 27 (The right to information about employment relationship and the right to appeal) and paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 88 (The right to appeal of public service employee) of the contested Law are not in compliance with paragraph 1 of Article 4 [Form of Government and Separation of Power], Article 32 [Right to Legal Remedies], and Article 54 [Judicial Protection of Rights] of the Constitution; (vi) paragraph 6 of Article 67 (Waiting list) of the contested Law is not in compliance with paragraph 1 of Article 3 [Equality before the Law] and paragraph 1 of Article 7 [Values] of the Constitution; (vii) paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Article 99 (Transitional provisions) of the contested Law are not in compliance with paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 46 [Protection of Property] of the Constitution in conjunction with paragraph 1 of Article 1 (Protection of Property) of Protocol No.  1 to the European Convention on Human Rights; and (viii) paragraph 2 of Article 104 (Repeal) of the contested Law is not in compliance with paragraph 1 of Article 3 [Equality before the Law], paragraph 1 of Article 4 [Form of Government and Separation of Power], and paragraph 1 of Article 7 [Values] of the Constitution, as clarified in the published Judgment. On the other hand, the Court found that: (i) the procedure followed for the adoption of Law No.  08/L-197 on Public Officials is not in contradiction with Articles 77 [Committees] and 78 [Committee on Rights and Interests of Communities] of the Constitution; and (ii) Article 46 (Appointment and mandate of lower and middle management positions) of Law No.  08/L-197 on Public Officials is not in contradiction with paragraph 2 of Article 19 [Applicability of International Law] and Article 101 [Civil Service] of the Constitution.

Notification regarding the Judgment can be read by clicking here

You can read the full text of the Judgment and summary in the official languages of the Republic of Kosovo and in the English and French languages by clicking here

5. KI64/23

Applicant: Mejrem Qehaja Rexha

Published on: 28 September 2023

Request for constitutional review of the prolongation of court proceedings before the Basic  Court in Gjakova regarding the case [C. no. 546/18]

The Court assessed the constitutionality of the excessive lenth the of court proceedings before the Basic Court in Gjakova regarding the case [C. No. 546/18]. The subject matter of the Referral is related to a property dispute, wherein the Applicant filed a lawsuit for the confirmation of property rights to the Basic Court in Gjakova in 2008. Since 2008, the Municipal Court, respectively the Basic Court, has not issued a decision regarding the Applicant’s statement of claim. For fourteen (14) years, the Supreme Court held a total of seventeen (17) court hearings, mainly of a preparatory nature, while the trial has been continuously postponed, mainly due to the failure of the respondents to appear in the respective hearings. The Court assessed the Applicant’s allegations regarding the violation of Article 31 [Right to Fair and Impartial Trial] of the Constitution in the context of her allegation that her case was not tried within a reasonable time period. In this regard, the Court, after elaborating on the general principles regarding the principle of the excessive length of the court proceedings, clarified that the reasonableness of the duration of proceedings should be assessed in light of the circumstances of the case, based on: (i) the complexity of the case; (ii) the behaviour of the parties to the proceedings; (iii) the behaviour of the competent court or other public authorities; and (iv) the importance of what the Applicant risks in the relevant context. During the application of the above-mentioned principles, the Court assessed that (i) the same does not reflect a case of high complexity; (ii) the Applicant was proactive throughout the court proceedings; and (iii) despite the fact that the Basic Court held seventeen (17) preparatory hearings, it was not able to decide on the merits of the Applicant’ claim. Consequently, the Court finds that the duration of the proceedings for about fourteen (14) years regarding the Applicant’s claim , during which no decision has been taken, constitutes a violation of the right to a fair trial within a reasonable time, contrary to the constitutional guarantees and those defined under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Notification regarding the Judgment can be read by clicking here

You can read the full text of the Judgment and summary in the official languages of the Republic of Kosovo and in the English language by clicking here

6. KI21/23

Applicant: “Kelkos Energy” sh.p.k.

Published on: 29 September 2023

Request for constitutional review of the Decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kosovo [ARJ. UZVP. no. 119/22] of 16 December 22.

The Court assessed the constitutionality of Judgment [ARJ. UZVP. no. 119/22] of the Supreme Court of Kosovo of 16 December 2022. The subject matter of the Referral is related to the postponement of the execution of decisions of the Ministry of Economy and Environment and the Energy Regulatory Office, regarding the granting of water permits, which allowed the Applicant to generate energy from renewable sources, namely the procedures related to the imposition of a security measure/interim measure until the merit-based decision is made, which process has been subject to the review and reconsideration of the case by regular courts, including twice by the District Court, the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court. On 10 November 2021, the Applicant submitted a Referral to the Constitutional Court, which was registered under number KI202/21, challenging the initial decision of the Supreme Court, alleging that his fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by Articles 31 [Right to Fair and Impartial Trial] and 46 [Protection of Property] of the Constitution have been violated, 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, among other things, as a result of the lack of reasoned court decision. The Constitutional Court, through Judgment KI 202/21, with Applicant “Kelkos Energy” sh.p.k., decided that the challenged Judgment of the Supreme Court has been issued in violation of Article 31 [Right to Fair and Impartial Trial] of the Constitution in conjunction with Article 6 (Right to a Fair Trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, essentially as a result of the violation of the right to a reasoned court decision. Following the decision of the Constitutional Court, the Supreme Court, acting in review, issued a new decision, whereby it reiterated the findings of its previous decision. The same decision of the Supreme Court was again challenged by the Applicant before the Constitutional Court, among other things, as a result of the lack of reasoned court decision and erroneous interpretation of the law, as well as the allegation of violation of property rights. The Court, after elaborating on the general principles of its case law and of the European Court of Human Rights, in relation to the reasoning of court decisions and the erroneous and arbitrary interpretation of the law, applied the same principles in the specific circumstances of the case and found that the Supreme Court, beyond the description of legal provisions, had not provided sufficient reasoning in its new decision in accordance with the criteria that must be met to decide on the suspension of decisions, namely the imposition of security/interim measures. Furthermore, despite the fact that the lack of treatment of applicable provisions of the Law on Administrative Conflicts had been continuously raised in the court instances, the Supreme Court simply approved the stance of the Basic and Appellate Courts without considering the substantive arguments presented by the Applicant, including those related to the active legitimacy of the respective parties to initiate an administrative conflict according to the provisions of the applicable law. As a result, the Court found that the challenged Judgment was issued in violation of the procedural guarantees provided for in Article 31 [Right to Fair and Impartial Trial] of the Constitution in conjunction with Article 6 (Right to a Fair Trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights, due to the lack of reasoned court decision and arbitrary interpretation and application of the law, referring the case for reconsideration to the Supreme Court.

Notification regarding the Judgment can be read by clicking here 

You can read the full text of the Judgment and summary in the official languages of the Republic of Kosovo and in the English language by clicking here

Resolution on Inadmissibility

_________________________________________

I.

In one (1) Resolution on Inadmissibility published by the Court, the latter found that the Applicant’s Referral is inadmissible pursuant to paragraph 8 of Article 113 [Jurisdiction and Authorized Parties] of the Constitution, Articles 51 (Accuracy of the Referral), 52 (Procedure Before a Court), and 53 (Decision) of the Law, point (b) of paragraph (1) of Rule 48 (Court’s Decisions) and 75 (Referral Pursuant to Paragraph 8 of Article 113 of the Constitution and Articles 51, 52 and 53 of the Law) of the Rules of Procedure.

7. KO147/22

Applicant: Supreme Court of the Republic of Kosovo

Published on: 27 September 2023

Request for constitutional review of Article 177, point 1.6 of the Statute of the University of Prishtina

In the Resolution on Inadmissibility in case KO147/22 published by the Court, the latter assessed the constitutionality of Article 177, point 1.6 of the Statute of the University of Prishtina, which stipulates that a candidate elected for the first time in the position of Assistant Professor must not be older than 50 years. Regarding the admissibility criteria defined in paragraph 8 of Article 113 [Jurisdiction and Authorized Parties] of the Constitution, the Court upheld that the Supreme Court is an authorized party to submit such a request. On the other hand, the Court analyzed the allegations of the Supreme Court, which had raised doubts regarding the constitutionality of Article 1.6 of Article 177 of the Statute of the University of Prishtina, as a provision that it considers could be in contradiction with the Constitution. In its assessment, the Court initially clarified that with regard to the fulfilment of the admissibility criteria of the Referral within the constitutional procedure defined by paragraph 8 of Article 113 [Jurisdiction and Authorized Parties] of the Constitution, the subject of a constitutional review can only be a law as a legal act adopted by the Assembly, and not other acts. The Court finds that the admissibility criterion according to which regular courts may refer to the Constitutional Court cases related to the constitutionality of a law is not fulfilled in the specific circumstances since the Statute of the UP is not a “law”. Consequently, the Court found that the Applicant’s Referral is inadmissible based on paragraph 8 of Article 113 [Jurisdiction and Authorized Parties] of the Constitution, Articles 51 (Accuracy of the Referral), 52 (Procedure Before a Court) and 53 (Decision) of the Law, point (b) of paragraph (1) of Rule 48 (Court’s Decisions) and 75 (Referral Pursuant to Paragraph 8 of Article 113 of the Constitution and Articles 51, 52 and 53 of the Law) of the Rules of Procedure, because based on the above-mentioned provisions, the subject of a constitutional review can only be a law as a legal act adopted by the Assembly, and not other acts.

You can read the full text of the Resolution and summary in the official languages of the Republic of Kosovo by clicking here

II.

In one (1) Resolution on Inadmissibility published by the Court, the latter found that pursuant to paragraph 7 of Article 113 [Jurisdiction and Authorized Parties] of the Constitution, paragraph 2 of Article 47 (Individual Requests) of the Law, point (b) of paragraph (1) and paragraph (2) of Rule 34 (Admissibility Criteria) of the Rules of Procedure, the Referral is inadmissible because the Applicant’s allegations (i) reflect allegations entailing “apparent absence of violation”; (ii) are “unsupported and unsubstantiated”; and (iii) due to the non-exhaustion of legal remedies.

8. KI207/21

Applicant: Bajram Koliç

Published on: 11 September 2023

Request for constitutional review of the Decision of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kosovo [Rev. no. 231/2021] of 09 June 2021

You can read the full text of the Resolution and summary in the official languages of the Republic of Kosovo by clicking here

III.

In eleven (11) Resolutions on Admissibility published by the Court, the latter found that the Applicants’ allegations are inadmissible pursuant to paragraph 7 of Article 113 [Jurisdiction and Authorized Parties] of the Constitution, Article 48 (Accuracy of the Referral) of the Law, paragraph (2) of Rule 34 (Admissibility Criteria) of the Rules of Procedure because (i) the Applicants’s allegation fall into the fourth-degree category; (ii) they reflect allegations entailing “apparent absence of violation”, and/or (iii) they are “unsupported or unsubstantiated”.

9. KI213/22

Applicant: Hadi Bakija

Published on: 19 September 2023

Request for constitutional review of the Judgment [Rev. no. 38/22] of the Supreme Court of  the Republic of Kosovo of 25 July 2022

You can read the full text of the Resolution and summary in the official languages of the Republic of Kosovo by clicking here

10. KI57/23 

Applicant: Ismet Ferati

Published on: 19 September 2023

Request for constitutional review of the Judgment [Rev. no. 38/21o] of the Court of Appeals of the  Republic of Kosovoof 6 December 2022

You can read the full text of the Resolution and summary in the official languages of the Republic of Kosovo by clicking here

11. KI110/22

Applicant: Rrahman Ademi

Published on: 19 September 2023

Request for constitutional review of the Judgment [AC. no. 5049/20] of the Court of Appeals of the Republic of Kosovo of 20 April 2022

You can read the full text of the Resolution and summary in the official languages of the Republic of Kosovo by clicking here

12. KI14/23

Applicant: Skender Kolgeci

Published on: 19 September 2023

Request for constitutional review of the Decision [Rev. no. 38/2022] of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kosovo of 28 September 2022

You can read the full text of the Resolution and summary in the official languages of the Republic of Kosovo by clicking here

13. KI172/22

Applicant: Florije Budakova

Published on: 20 September 2023

Request for constitutional review of the Judgment [ARJ-UZVP. no. 43/2022] of the Supreme  Court of the Republic of Kosovo [of 15 June 2022

You can read the full text of the Resolution and summary in the official languages of the Republic of Kosovo by clicking here

14. KI148/22

Applicant: Musli Gashi

Published on: 20 September 2023

Request for constitutional review of the Judgment of the Supreme Court [A.A. no. 6/2022] of the Republic of Kosovo of 30 May 2022

You can read the full text of the Resolution and summary in the official languages of the Republic of Kosovo by clicking here

15. KI175/22

Applicant: Edison Muhaxheri

Published on: 26 September 2023

Request for constitutional review of the Judgment of the Supreme Court [Rev. 576/2021] of the Republic of Kosovo of 12 September 2022

You can read the full text of the Resolution and summary in the official languages of the Republic of Kosovo by clicking here

16. KI103/22

Applicant: Halit Berisha and Sahit Berisha

Published on: 26 September 2023

Request for constitutional review of the Judgment of the Supreme Court [Rev. no 244/2021] of the Republic of Kosovo of 20 April 2022

You can read the full text of the Resolution and summary in the official languages of the Republic of Kosovo by clicking here

17. KI123/23

Applicant: Mehdi Arifaj

Published on: 27 September 2023

Request for constitutional review of the Decision [AC-I-22-0678-A0001] of the Appellate Panel of the Special Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kosovo on Privatisation Agency of Kosovo Related Matters of 9 March 9 2023

You can read the full text of the Resolution and summary in the official languages of the Republic of Kosovo by clicking here

KI20/23

Applicant: N.T.P “Duglas”

Published on: 27 September 2023

Request for constitutional review of the Judgment of the Supreme Court [Rev.  E. no.7/2022] of the Republic of of Kosovo of 10 August 2022

You can read the full text of the Resolution and summary in the official languages of the Republic of Kosovo by clicking here

IV.

In one (1) Resolution on Inadmissibility published by the Court, the latter found that the Applicant’s Referral is inadmissible pursuant to paragraph 7 of Article 113 [Jurisdiction and Authorized Parties] of the Constitution, paragraph 2 of Article 47 (Individual Request) of the Law, point (d) of paragraph 1, and points (b) and (d) of paragraph (2) of Rule 34 (Admissibility Criteria) of the Rules of Procedures because, among other things, the Applicant’s allegations (i) are of ratione materiae with the Constitution; and (ii) they entail “unsupported or unsubstantiated” allegations.

19. KI34/23

Applicant: Veton Syla

Published on: 20 September 2023

Request for constitutional review of the Decision of the Court of Appeals [PN. no. 745/2022] of the Republic of Kosovo of 26 October 2022

You can read the full text of the Resolution and summary in the official languages of the Republic of Kosovo by clicking here

V.

In one (1) Resolution on Inadmissibility published by the Court, the latter found that the Applicant’s Referral is inadmissible pursuant to paragraph 7 of Article 113 [Jurisdiction and Authorized Parties] of the Constitution, Article 49 (Deadlines) of the Law, point (c) of paragraph (1) of Rule 34 (Admissibility Criteria) of the Rules of Procedure, because it was submitted beyond the four (4) month deadline.

20. KI171/22

Applicant: Maliq Biringjiku

Published on: 26 September 2023

Request for constitutional review of the Judgment [Pml. no. 64/2021] of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kosovo  of 12 March 2021

You can read the full text of the Resolution and summary in the official languages of the Republic of Kosovo by clicking here

VI.

In one (1) Resolution on Inadmissibility published by the Court, the latter found that the Applicant’s Referral is inadmissible pursuant to paragraph 7 of Article 113 [Jurisdiction and Authorized Parties] of the Constitution, paragraph 2 of Article 47 (Individual Requests) of the Law, point (b) of paragraph (1) of Rule 34 (Admissibility Criteria) of the Rules of Procedure because the Applicant has not exhausted legal remedies.

21. KI127/22

Applicant: N.T.SH. “M Com”

Published on: 26 September 2023

Request for constitutional review of the Judgment of the Supreme Court [ARJ. UZVP. no. 49/2022]of the Republic of Kosovo of 15 June 2022

You can read the full text of the Resolution and summary in the official languages of the Republic of Kosovo by clicking here

Decisions

_________________________________________

I.

22. KO177/23

Applicant: Municipality of Prizren

Published on: 15 September 2023

Request for constitutional review of Article 5 of Law No. 08/L-224 on Amending and Supplementing Law No. 06/L-005 on Immovable Property Tax

The Court decided to impose an interim measure by suspending the implementation of Article 5 of Law No. 08/L-224 on Amending and Supplementing Law No. 06/L-005 on Immovable Property Tax until 30 November 2023. The imposition of the temporary measure was made following a claim filed by the Municipality of Prizren before the Court, pursuant to paragraph 4 of Article 113 [Jurisdiction and Authorized Parties] of the Constitution, alleging that the above-mentioned provision violates municipal responsibilities and diminishes the municipal revenues in violation of (i) the constitutional guarantees outlined in paragraph 2 of Article 12 [Local Government], paragraphs 1 and 3 of Article 123 [General Principles], and paragraphs 2, 3 and 5 of Article 124 [Local Self-Government Organization and Operation] of the Constitution; (ii) the European Charter of Local Self-Government; and (iii) Law No. 03/L-40 on Local Self-Government, Law No. 03/L-49 on Local Government Finance; and Law 06/L-005 on Immovable Property Tax, essentially because, among other things, it interferes with the exercise of the municipality’s own competencies related to revenues from immovable property tax and impacts the municipal budget up to the amount of €3 million. The Court’s decision clarifies that in the specific circumstances of the case, suspending the effects of Article 5 of the contested Law may (i) “prevent irreparable harm or damages” related to actions taken by the local authorities according to the provisions and deadlines specified in the contested Law, and (ii) the assessment of its constitutionality, specifically Article 5 of the contested Law, before its implementation, is in the “public interest”, as it serves legal certainty concerning the legal consequences of the contested Law regarding the exercise of municipal responsibilities and the management of municipal immovable property tax revenues on one hand, and the immovable property tax amnesty for taxpayers on the other one. The Court emphasized that such a finding does not prejudge in any way the admissibility and/or merits of the Referral in case KO177/23.

Notification regarding the Judgment can be read by clicking here

You can read the full text of the Judgment and summary in the official languages of the Republic of Kosovo and in the English language by clicking here

II.

In one (1) Decision to Dismiss the Referral published by the Court, the latter found that the Applicant’s Referral was rejected pursuant to paragraph 7 of Article 113 [Jurisdiction and Authorized Parties] of the Constitution, paragraph 1 of Article 47 (Individual Request) of the Law, point (b) of paragraph (1) of Rule 54 (Dismissal and Rejection of Referrals) of the Rules of Procedure because it does not constitute a legal dispute.

23. KI97/23

Applicant: Gjevrije Zeqiri

Published on: 19 September 2023

Request for constitutional review of an unspecified act.

You can read the full text of the Resolution and summary in the official languages of the Republic of Kosovo by clicking here

III.

In three (3) Decisions to Reject the Referral published by the Court, the latter found that the Applicant’s Referral was rejected pursuant to paragraph 7 of Article 113 [Jurisdiction and Authorized Parties] of the Constitution, Article 47 (Individual Request) of the Law, point (b) of paragraph (1) of Rule 54 (Dismissal and Rejection of Referrals) of the Rules of Procedure because the same Referral (i) is a repetition of a previous Referral, or (ii) is incomplete.

24. KI96/23

Applicant: Muhamet Miftari

Published on: 19 September 2023

Request for reconsideration of the Ruling on Inadmissibility No. KI80/22 of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Kosovo of 11 January 2023

You can read the full text of the Resolution and summary in the official languages of the Republic of Kosovo by clicking here

25. KI13/23

Applicant: Marigona Djordjevic-Jakaj

Published on: 20 September 2023

Request for constitutional review of an unspecified act of a public authority

You can read the full text of the Resolution and summary in the official languages of the Republic of Kosovo by clicking here

26. KI56/23

Applicant: Lendita Zherka

Published on: 27 September 2023

Request for constitutional review of an unspecified act of a public authority

You can read the full text of the Resolution and summary in the official languages of the Republic of Kosovo by clicking here

Note: 

This notification was prepared by the Secretariat of the Court solely for informational purposes. The full texts of the decisions have been served on all parties involved in the cases and will be published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Kosovo within the specified deadlines.