Constitutional Court

The Applicant filed the referral in accordance with 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, on 15 January 2009.
On 26 April 2011, the Applicant filed the referral with the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Kosovo.
On 28 April 2011, the President of the Court appointed Judge Almiro Rodrigues as Reporting Judge, and the Review Panel composed of: Altay Suroy (Presiding), Ivan Čukalović and Kadri Kryeziu.
The Court, on 6 December 2011, demanded from the District Commercial Court in Prishtina to obtain information on the date of service of the Supreme Court judgment to the applicant.
The District Commercial Court in Prishtina, on 27 June 2008, rendered a judgment allowing execution of case in which the applicant was claimant.
The applicant filed a complaint against this judgment on 16 January 2009. The District Commercial Court quashed the judgment allowing execution, of 27 June 2008, thereby annulling the obligation of the applicant to pay the debt principal, interests and procedural costs.
The applicant, in February 2009, filed a claim for restoration to initial state.
The District Commercial Court in Prishtina, on 12 May 2009, decided to “REJECT the claim of the claimant for restoration to initial state as ungrounded”.
The applicant further filed a complaint with the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court of Kosovo, on 21 September 2010, decided to “reject the complaint” [of the applicant].
Upon the referral of the Applicant, the Constitutional Court wishes to remind all that according to the Constitution, it is not a court of appeal, or a court of fourth instance, in reviewing decisions rendered by regular courts. It is the duty of regular courts to interpret the law and apply relevant procedural rules and material law.
The Applicant’s referral does not claim that the Supreme Court acted in an arbitrary or otherwise improper manner. It is on the Constitutional Court to substitute its own assessment of facts with the assessment of regular courts, and as a matter of principle, it is on the regular courts to assess the evidence before them.
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