Constitutional Court

The Applicant filed a Referral pursuant to Article 113.7 of the Constitution, asserting that his Constitutional rights were infringed by a judgment of the Gjilan District Court, which affirmed a lower court’s foreclosure order on mortgaged real estate. He argued that the court had failed to recognize his oral agreement with the creditor for a payment adjustment, the failure of the creditor to record all of his payments and the failure of the creditor to give him a payment grace period, The Court held that the Referral was manifestly ill-founded and inadmissible pursuant to Article 48 of the Law on the Constitutional Court and Rule 36.1(c) of the Rules of Procedure because the Applicant had failed to make a prima facie showing that particular Constitutional rights and freedoms had been violated, and to specify the concrete public authority actions related to the violations, citing Vanek v. Slovak Republic. The Court emphasized that its discretion is limited to the disposition of Constitutional controversies, such as whether trial proceedings were fair, as opposed to the resolution of factual or substantive law disputes, citing Garcia Ruiz v. Spain and Edwards v. United Kingdom