Constitutional Court

The Applicant filed a Referral pursuant to Article 113.7 of the Constitution, asserting that his rights under Articles 21, 22, 24, 31, 41, 46, 53 and 54 of the Constitution were infringed by a judgment of the Supreme Court, which affirmed the Peja District Court’s decision that the Peja Municipal Court had correctly rejected the Applicant’s claim for inheritance rights in socially-owned property on the ground that the former owners of the property had been compensated in a legal manner, The Court held that the Referral was inadmissible because it was submitted after expiration of the 4-month deadline imposed by Article 49 of the Law on the Constitutional Court. Also, the Court held that the Referral was manifestly ill-founded and inadmissible due to a lack of evidence demonstrating that the proceedings below were either not impartial or unfair, citing Mezotur-Tiszacugi Tarsulat v. Hungary for the proposition that mere dissatisfaction with an outcome is an insufficient basis for a referral. The Court highlighted that its role was limited to Constitutional disputes, which did not include factual or substantive law controversies, citing Akdivar v. Turkey, Finally, the Court held on identical grounds that the Referral was manifestly ill-founded in relation to the implicated European Convention on Human Rights allegations, citing Mordechai Poznanski et al. v. Germany