Constitutional Court

KI215/19 Applicant: Fekë Kuçi, constitutional review of Judgment AA. No. 524/2018 of the Court of Appeals of 10 April 2019

KI 215/19, resolution on inadmissibility of 15 July 2020, published on 10 August 2020

Keywords: Individual referral, property dispute, disciplinary proceedings, premature, out of time

The Applicant submitted the Referral to the Constitutional Court because he considers that the challenged decisions violated his rights guaranteed by Articles 24 and 31 of the Constitution, in conjunction with Article 6 of the ECHR as well as Article 10 of the UDHR.

In fact, two proceedings were conducted in the Applicant’s case, namely (i) Proceedings concerning the division of property after the death of the Applicant’s father and (ii) Disciplinary proceedings before the Kosovo Police and Administrative Dispute regarding the latter.

As to the first court proceedings regarding the division of property after the death of the Applicant’s father, the Court, after considering the attached documents and on the basis of the Applicant’s allegations, finds that these proceedings are still pending, based on complaints of the Applicant and other heirs of the disputed property. According to the Applicant, this procedure was remanded to the Basic Court in Peja-Branch in Istog for retrial.

Therefore, in connection with the first proceedings regarding the division of inheritance, the Court finds that the Applicant has not exhausted all legal remedies prescribed by law, and that the Referral is accordingly inadmissible in accordance with Article 113.7 of the Constitution, Article 47.2 of the Law and Rule 39 (1) (b) the Rules of Procedure.

With regard to the second court proceeding, in order to be able to verify whether the referral was filed within the legal time-limit, the Court takes into account the “last decision” which decided regarding the Applicant’s case. The Court considers that Judgment AA. No. 524/18 of the Court of Appeals of 10 April 2019, is the last decision regarding the Applicant’s case, while the Applicant received this Judgment on 3 May 2019.

As to the Applicant’s allegation that the Notification of the State Prosecutor’s Office of 21 May 2019 was applied on 25 May 2019 was the last decision as to the effective legal remedy, the Court notes that the fact that the Applicant received a notification from the Office of the Chief Prosecutor on the stated date, but according to this notification, the Chief State Prosecutor did not initiate a request for protection of legality regarding the Applicant’s case, with a reasoning: “that he did not find any of the legal grounds for initiating the request for protection of legality“.

On the basis of the above, it follows that the Referral was not filed within the legal time limit set out in Article 49 of the Law and Rule 39 (1) (c) of the Rules of Procedure.

For the abovementioned reasons, the Court concludes that the Applicant’s referral does not meet the procedural admissibility requirements, as it is out of time.