Constitutional Court

Applicant NLB Bank Pristina filed a Referral pursuant to Article 113.7 of the Constitution, asserting that its rights under Article 54 of the Constitution were infringed by a judgment of the Supreme Court, which affirmed a decision of the Prishtina Commercial District Court rejecting the Applicant’s claim against the execution of an unjust enrichment judgment obtained by a debtor, and requesting interim measures, The Applicant argued that the debtor’s claim for unjust enrichment suit had no legal basis, that the disputed credit agreement was executed voluntarily and lawfully, that the debtor violated the agreement, and that the affirmed Commercial District Court decision contradicted an earlier, controlling decision, The Court held that the Referral was manifestly ill-founded and inadmissible pursuant to Rule 36.1(c) of the Rules of Procedure because the Applicant complained about factual and substantive law determinations by the Supreme Court and lower court, whereas this Court is limited to resolving Constitutional disputes, citing Sevdail Avdyli and Garcia Ruiz v. Spain, such as whether the Applicant was afforded a fair trial, citing Edwards v. United Kingdom. The Court found that the Applicant had failed to meet its burden of making a prima facie showing that the contested Supreme Court decision was arbitrary or unfair, citing Shub v. Lithuania and Vanek v. Slovak Republic. Similarly, the Court denied the request for interim measures pursuant to Article 27 of the Law on the Constitutional Court because the Applicant failed to establish the potential for irreparable damage or a public interest in approval of the measures