Constitutional Court

The applicant filed a Referral based on the 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, of 15 January 2009.

The applicant filed his referral to the Court on 29 June 2011.

The President of the Court, on 17 August 2011, appointed Judge Gjyljeta Mushkolaj as Judge Rapporteur, and the Review Panel composed of: Almiro Rodrigues (Presiding), Enver Hasani and Iliriana Islami.

The applicant filed a claim with the Municipal Court in Gjilan for certification of property rights.
The Municipal Court in Gjilan, by judgment of 10 January 2007, approved the claim of the Applicant, thereby certifying that the claimant and other members of his family are owners to the property.
The District Court in Gjilan, by judgment of 22 June 2007, upheld the judgment of the Municipal Court, and rejected the complaint of the opposing party.
Nevertheless, the Supreme Court of Kosovo, by judgment of 12 January 2011, quashed the judgments of lower instance courts, and rejected the claim of claimant in relation to property.
The Supreme Court reviewed the factual situation in the case, and found that lower instance courts had erroneously applied material law, when deciding to the favour of the claim suit of the Applicant. The Supreme Court took into account the following facts.
The Supreme Court did not agree with the decisions of lower instance courts that the Applicant had acquired property rights by adverse possession, The Applicant demanded from the Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of the Supreme Court decision, and impose interim measure to ensure that the judgment of the Supreme Court is null and void, if constitutional violations are established.
The Constitutional Court maintains that according to the Constitution, it is not its duty to act as a court of appeal, or a court of fourth instance. The Constitutional Court may only assess whether the evidence is presented in the manner, and whether the general proceeding, in its entirety, executed in the manner of ensuring a fair trial of the Applicant.
The Court maintains that the facts presented in no way corroborate the allegations of violation of Constitutional right to protection of property. Therefore, pursuant to Article 113, paragraph 7 of the Constitution, Article 27 of the Law, and Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure, the Constitutional Court unanimously decided to REJECT the request for interim measure, and REJECT the referral as inadmissible.