Constitutional Court

The Applicants filed a Referral pursuant to Article 113.7 contending that the Supreme Court’s grant of the Public Prosecutor’s Request for Protection of Legality, thereby annulling the Prishtina Municipal Court’s favorable disposition of their property dispute, after the decision had become res judicata violated Articles 22.1, 22.2, 22.5, 31.1 and 46 of the Constitution. They requested the Court to quash the Supreme Court’s decision, restore the Municipal Court’s restitution order, and grant various interim measures to protect their property rights. The Applicants argued that the Public Prosecutor did not have the right to submit a Request for Protection of Legality, the Request was filed in the wrong court since the Special Chamber had exclusive jurisdiction over the appeal, and the appeal was time-barred by the Rules of the Special Chamber, The Court denied the request for interim measures because the Applicants did not demonstrate a potential for irreparable damage. It held that the Referral was inadmissible ratione temporis because it dealt with issues occurring prior to implementation of the Constitution. The Court reasoned that even if the alleged violations were continuing in nature and therefore within its temporal jurisdiction, the Referral was nonetheless inadmissible because the Applicants had failed to exhaust all available legal remedies in light of the pendency of the Municipal Court matter, citing Selmouni v. France, Azinas v. Cyprus, AAB-RIINVEST University L.L.C., Pristina vs. Government of the Republic of Kosovo and Mimoza Kusari-Lila vs. The Central Election Commission