Constitutional Court

KI143/16, Applicant: Muharrem Blaku and others, Request for constitutional review of Judgment ASC-11-0012 of the Appellate Panel of the Special Chamber of the Supreme Court of Kosovo on Privatization Agency of Kosovo Related Matters of 22 September 2016

KI143/16, Resolution on Inadmissibility, of 17 May 2018, published on 13 June 2018

Keywords: Individual referral, civil procedure, fair and impartial trial, manifestly ill-founded

The Applicants requested the Court the constitutional review of the Decision of the Appellate Panel of the Special Chamber of the Supreme Court of Kosovo on Privatization Agency of Kosovo Related Matters, which upheld the Decision of the Specialized Panel of the same court and of the Municipal Court in Podujeva, which decided regarding the compensation of a parcel of land, which was nationalized in 1960.

The Applicants alleged violation of Article 31 of the Constitution, namely the right to fair and impartial trial in some of the key elements of this right such as: the equality of arms, the right to participate in the trial and the right to a reasoned court decision.

The Court reviewed the Applicants’ allegations and extensively elaborated the general principles of the right to fair and impartial trial that in the circumstances of the present case, a hearing was held in the first instance court. The Municipal Court in Podujeva held a main hearing where the facts of the case were reviewed, with the participation of all parties which were a part of the dispute. The Applicants had the opportunity to present in the main hearing their arguments and evidence, which the respective court assessed as insufficient to approve the claim. From the Judgment, it can also be noted that in the main hearing the expertise of independent experts was also considered.

The Court also responded to two other allegations regarding the violation of this right, citing the previous cases of this court, applicable in this case and also cases of ECtHR.

In conclusion, the Court found that the Applicants did not substantiate their allegations with convincing evidence, therefore, the Court concluded that their referral is to be declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded on constitutional basis.