Constitutional Court

KO 116/19, Applicant Ismet Kryeziu as the alleged representative of the Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning of the Republic, Request for legal interpretation of the Decision AC-I-13-0125-0001 and 0002 of the Appellate Panel of the SCSC, of 22 July 2015

KO 116/19, Decision to reject the referral of 13 May 2020, published on 9 June 2020

Keywords: Referral submitted in accordance with paragraph 10 of Article 93 [Competencies of the Government], and in conjunction with Article 113 [Jurisdiction and Authorized Parties] of the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo, request for legal interpretation of decisions of regular courts, request does not meet procedural requirements, rejected referral.

The Referral is based on paragraph 10 of Article 93 [Competencies of the Government], and in conjunction with Article 113 [Jurisdiction and Authorized Parties] of the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo (hereinafter: the Constitution).

The alleged Applicant addresses the Court with a request for legal interpretation as to whether they should enforce the final judgment of the Municipal Court confirmed by the District Court in Prishtina, and decision of the Special Chamber of the Supreme Court of Kosovo rejecting the PAK’s claim, or suspend the proceedings under the Judgment PAKR. no. 158/15 of the Court of Appeals , of  05.04.2016, in order to decide on the party’s request for registration of ownership rights in her name under the above legal acts.

The Court has in several cases contacted the Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning of the Republic of Kosovo regarding the supplementation of the referral, which was necessary for further decision-making on this referral. However, the Court did not receive the requested clarifications from the Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning of the Republic of Kosovo regarding the referral.

Consequently, the Court finds that the referral in question is incomplete, because the Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning of the Republic of Kosovo has failed to submit the supporting documents requested by the Court to prove the grounds of the request.

Accordingly, the Court concludes that the referral does not meet the procedural requirements for further examination as provided for in Rules 32 and 35 of the Rules of Procedure.