Constitutional Court

The Applicant filed a Referral pursuant to Article 113.7 of the Constitution, asserting that his rights under Articles 7, 21, 22 and 24 of the Constitution, as well as Article 6 and Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, were infringed by a judgment of the Supreme Court, which rejected his request for restitution of expropriated immovable property in Gjakova because it was time-barred, 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 of the Rules of Procedure because it sought a determination of whether the Supreme Court correctly applied the law and facts, which is beyond the Court’s limited discretion to only resolve alleged violations of constitutional law, citing Garcia v. Spain. The Court found that the Supreme Court proceedings were not in any way unfair or arbitrary, citing Shub v. Lithuania and Vanek v. Slovak Republic, and that the Applicant had failed to make a prima facie showing in that regard