Constitutional Court

KI231/19, Applicant: Privatization Agency of Kosovo which represents the SOE „Kosovo-Export”, Request for constitutional  review of Judgment AC-I-15-0212-A0001 of the Appellate Panel of the Special Chamber of the Supreme Court on the Privatization Agency of Kosovo Related Matters of 22 August 2019

KI231/19, Resolution on inadmissibility of 26 February 2020, published on 22 April 2020

Keywords: Individual referral, right to property, interim measure, manifestly ill-founded, resolution on inadmissibility 

The Applicant submitted the Referral to the Constitutional Court, because it considered that the decision of the Appellate Panel of the SCSC has allegedly violated its rights and freedoms guaranteed by Article 3 paragraph 1 [Equality Before the Law], Article 7 [Values], Article 24 paragraph 1 [Equality Before the Law], Article 31 [Right to Fair and Impartial Trial], Article 54 paragraph 1 [Judicial Protection of Rights], Article 102 paragraph 3 [General Principles of Judicial System] of the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo (hereinafter: the Constitution), as Article 6 (Right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter: the ECHR).

The Applicant also requested the Court to impose an interim measure.

In fact, the Court notes that the substance of the dispute relates to the fact that the Appellate Panel of the SCSC rendered a final judgment resolving the subject matter of the dispute regarding the confirmation of property rights over several parcels of property filed by person Z. Rr.H. by the claim with Special Chamber of the Supreme Court on the Privatization Agency of Kosovo Related Matters.

The Court considering the Applicant’s allegations considers that the Applicant raised part of these allegations in the Referral at the level of legality regarding the violation of Article 31 of the Constitution and Article 6 of the ECHR, while the second part of the allegations, the Applicant raises and builds on the level of constitutionality regarding the violation of Article 31 of the Constitution and Article 6 of the ECHR.

Accordingly, because of these findings that the Court finds it necessary to divide the Applicant’s allegations into i) the allegations raised by the Applicant at the level of legality regarding constitutional violations; as well as ii) the allegations raised by the Applicant at the level of constitutionality regarding constitutional violations.

Analyzing the allegations raised by the Applicant at the level of legality, the Court concluded that it did not find anything that would lead to the conclusion that the regular courts have erroneously or arbitrarily applied the relevant legal provisions, leading to the conclusion that there has been no violation of Article 31 of the Constitution in conjunction with Article 6 of the ECHR, in relation to the first part of the Applicant’s allegations.

With regard to the allegations raised by the Applicant at the level of constitutionality pertaining to the constitutional violations, the Court found that the Appellate Panel of the SCSC, in the reasoning of the Judgment, provided detailed explanations for all of the Applicant’s allegations raised before the Appellate Panel of the SCSC, from which it follows and these allegations of the Applicant are also ungrounded.

The Court based on the analysis, both the allegations of the Applicant which concerned the question of legality and the allegations regarding the question of constitutionality, did not find that the proceedings before the Specialized Panel of the SCSC and the Appellate Panel of the SCSC were in any way unfair or arbitrary for the Constitutional Court to be satisfied that the Applicant had been denied any procedural guarantees, which would lead to a violation of the right to a fair and impartial trial, guaranteed by Article 31 of the Constitution namely Article 6 of the ECHR, and, consequently, the Court concludes that there is no violation of other articles of the Constitution and the ECHR cited by the Applicant in the Referral.

The Court also rejected the Applicant’s request for the imposition of an interim measure as ungrounded.