Constitutional Court

KI240/19, Applicant: Enver Latifi, Constitutional review of Decision AC. No. 4367/18 of the Court of Appeals of 12 December 2018

Key words: individual referral, right to a fair trial, out of time, resolution on inadmissibility

The Applicant initiated before the regular courts the proceedings regarding the interference with the possession of immovable property, namely the cadastral parcel owned by him. The Basic Court confirmed the ownership of the Applicant on the disputed parcel and ordered that it be returned to the Applicant’s possession.

Based on the judgment of the Basic Court, the Applicant initiated enforcement proceedings requesting the enforcement of the judgment of the Basic Court.

The courts rejected the Applicant’s enforcement request because it was not filed in accordance with the law. The Applicant filed a request for revision against this decision, which was rejected due to inadmissibility.

In this regard, the Applicant alleged before the Court that the rejection of the request for execution violated his rights and freedoms guaranteed by Article 31 [Right to Fair and Impartial Trial] and Article 34 [Right not to be Tried Twice for the Same Criminal Act], of the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo.

Before analyzing the Applicant’s allegations, the Court examined whether the Applicant met all the formal requirements for submitting the Referral to the Court, the Court determined that the Applicant was an authorized party, that he exhausted all available legal remedies and that he specified the act of the public authority, which constitutionality he challenges before the Court. However, the Court concluded that the last decision in this case was in fact the Decision [Ac. No. 4637/18] of the Court of Appeals of 12 December 2018, and that the time limit starts to run from the date of receipt of the abovementioned decision by the Applicant’s representative or the Applicant personally and that it cannot take into account the Decision [Rev. No. 59/2019] of the Supreme Court, because such a request is not allowed in the enforcement proceedings.

Based on the above, the Court concluded that the Referral was not filed within the legal  time limit prescribed by Article 49 of the Law and Rule 39 (1) (c) of the Rules of Procedure and must be declared inadmissible, because it was out of time.