Constitutional Court

KI99/19, Applicant: Persa Raičević, request for constitutional review of Decision AC-1-16-0038 of the Appellate Panel of the Special Chamber of the Supreme Court on Privatization Agency of Kosovo Related Matters, of 2 May 2019 

KI99/19, Resolution  on Inadmissibility of 7 November 2019, published on 24 December 2019 

Keywords: Resolution on inadmissibility, right to property, manifestly ill-founded on constitutional basis

The subject matter of the Referral was the constitutional review of the challenged Decision of the Appellate Panel of the Special Chamber of the Supreme Court on Privatization Agency of Kosovo Related Matters, which, according to the Applicant’s allegations, violates her fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by Articles 7 [Values], 31 [Right to Fair and Impartial Trial], 46 [Protection of Property], 49 [Right to Work and Exercise Profession], 51 [Health and Social Protection], 156 [Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons] of the Constitution, and the rights and freedoms guaranteed by Articles 6 (Right to a fair trial) and Article 14 (Prohibition of discrimination) of the ECHR; Articles 1, 2 and 8 of the European Social Charter; and Article 11 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women.

The Applicant built her allegations based on the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by Article 31 of the Constitution in conjunction with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, alleging in essence that (i) the notification of the Kosovo Trust Agency for filing the claims; (ii) Decision [PEJ139-01330] of the Liquidation Authority of the Kosovo Trust Agency of 16 July 2013; and (iii) Decision [AC-1-16-0038] of the Appellate Panel of 3 May 2019 in conjunction with Judgment [C-IV-13-1641] of the Specialized Panel of 9 October 2015, were contrary to the Constitution and applicable law.

The Court, in assessing the Applicant’s allegations, first clarified that (i) the Applicant raised allegations that, based on the case law of the Court and the European Court of Human Rights, fall into the field of legality and not constitutionality, and consequently , in principle, the Court cannot consider them; (ii) the proceedings before the regular courts, in their entirety, were not unfair or arbitrary and that their decisions reviewed and reasoned all the Applicant’s allegations; and (iii) the Applicant’s other allegations of constitutional violations and of the international instruments guaranteed by the Constitution were not substantiated and that their mere mentioning before the Court could not result in substantiated allegations of constitutional violations.

The Court finally concluded that, having regard to the allegations raised by the Applicant and the facts presented by her, relying also on the standards established in its own case-law in similar cases and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights, it was neither sufficiently proved nor substantiated that the challenged Decision of the Appellate Panel was rendered in violation of the Constitution and of the European Convention on Human Rights, thus resulting in an inadmissible Referral before the Court, as manifestly ill-founded on constitutional basis, based on paragraph 7 of Article 113 of the Constitution, Article 47 of the Law and paragraph (2) of Rule 39 of the Rules of Procedure.