Constitutional Court

The applicant filed a Referral based on the Article 113.7 and 21.4 of the Constitution, Articles 20, 22.7 and 22.8 of the Law no. 03/L-121 on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Kosovo, of 15 January 2009.

The applicant filed his referral to the Constitutional Court on 21 November 2011.

The President of the Court, on 17 January 2012, appointed Judge Kadri Kryeziu as Judge Rapporteur, and the Review Panel composed of: Robert Carolan (Presiding), Altay Suroy and Enver Hasani.

The applicant was rejected his application for Pension as KLA Invalid by the Division for Families of Heroes, War Invalids and Civil Victims, on 28 January 2011, since he lacked the original certification by the KPC Headquarters.
Discontented with this decision, the Applicant lodged a complaint with the Complaint Section of the above-mentioned Division.
The Complaint Section of the above-mentioned Division, on 8 April 2011, rendered a decision thereby rejecting the complaint of the Applicant. According to the decision of 8 April 2011, the complaint of the Applicant was rejected due to the fact that the document submitted by the applicant did not demonstrate that the Applicant was member of the KLA, and that he was wounded.
The Applicant, on 5 May 2011, filed a complaint with the Supreme Court, thereby requiring to quash the decision of 8 April 2011. The Applicant claimed that the decision is unlawful and unfair.

The Supreme Court, on 7 June 2011, by Judgment A. no. 396/2011, rejected the claim of the Applicant.
The Applicant alleges that the Supreme Court, and prior to that, administrative bodies, have erroneously established the facts.

Following review of the Referral, the Constitutional Court noted that according to the Constitution, the Court is not a court of fourth instance, in reviewing the decisions rendered by regular courts. It is a role of regular courts to interpret and apply relevant procedural rules and material law.
Following a comprehensive review of proceeding, the Court did not find that relevant procedures were unlawful or arbitrary in any way.
Therefore, pursuant to Article 113, paragraph 7 of the Constitution, and Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure, the Constitutional Court unanimously decided to reject the referral as inadmissible