Constitutional Court

The Applicant filed a Referral pursuant to Article 113.7 of the Constitution, asserting that his rights under Articles 31, 46 and 53 of the Constitution, and Articles 1 and 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, were infringed by decisions of the Supreme Court and the Peja District Court concerning the Applicant’s ownership rights to two distinct parcels of land, The Applicant’s appeal of the District Court decision was pending before the Supreme Court when the Referral was filed. He failed to produce evidence of non-payment of compensation for the land relating to the Supreme Court judgment in controversy, The Court held that the District Court aspect of the Referral was premature and inadmissible pursuant to Article 113.7 and Rule 36.1(a) of the Rules of Procedure because the pending appeal in the Supreme Court reflected a failure to exhaust potential legal remedies, citing Selmouni v. France for the assumption that the Kosovo legal system will provide an effective remedy for constitutional violations. The Court also held that the Supreme Court aspect of the Referral was inadmissible pursuant to Article 48 of the Law on the Constitutional Court and Rule 36.2(b) because the Applicant failed to make out a prima facie case substantiating that the specified constitutional violations occurred. The Court noted that its role was to resolve allegations of constitutional violations and not to dispose of factual or ordinary legal disputes, citing Garcia Ruiz v. Spain and Vanek v. Slovak Republic