Constitutional Court

KI34/20, Applicant: Ramadan Zogaj, Constitutional review of Judgment AC-I-0003 of the Appellate Panel of the Special Chamber of the Supreme Court on Privatization Agency of Kosovo Related Matters, of 17 October 2019.

KI34/20, Resolution on Inadmissibility, adopted on 10 November 2020

Keywords: individual referral, unauthorized party, inadmissible referral

1. The Court recalls that the circumstances of the present case relate to four different court proceedings, initiated in 2001 and concluded with the rendering of the challenged Judgment [AC-I-0003] of 18 October 2019 of the SCSC Appellate Panel. Initially, the Court recalls that according to the case file, the Applicant had used the apartment during the period 1989-1992, and then settled in the same apartment in June 1999, which he declares to have used until the submission of his Referral to the Court on 18 February 2020. As a result of Decision [No. 221], of 22 November 1999, of the enterprise SOE “IGK Balkan”, the apartment, in which the Applicant was settled, was allocated to the employee of this enterprise H.H. Consequently, on 5 January 2000, SOE “IGK Balkan” and H.H. had entered into a contract for the use of the apartment. The Applicant specifically challenges Judgment AC-I-0003] of 18 October 2019 of the SCSC Appellate Panel, rendered in a procedure initiated by H.H. and in which procedure the Applicant was not a party at all. Through this Judgment, the Appellate Panel had approved H.H.’s right to purchase the apartment based on the use.

2. The Applicant, however, challenges the findings of the Appellate Panel alleging that his basic rights and freedoms guaranteed by guaranteed by Article 31 [Right to Fair and Impartial Trial] of the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo (hereinafter: the Constitution) in conjunction with Article 6 (Right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter: the ECHR), Article 32 [Right to Legal Remedies] of the Constitution, in conjunction with Article 13 (Right to an effective remedy) of the ECHR, paragraph 1 of Article 3 [Equality before the Law] of the Constitution, Article 7 [Values] and Article 46 [Protection of Property] of the Constitution, in conjunction with Article 1 (Protection of property) of Protocol no. 1 of the ECHR.

3. In its assessment of whether the Applicant has the status of an authorized party to file a Referral with the Court, applying the standards of the case law of the Court and that of the European Court of Human Rights, the Court found that the Referral is inadmissible because the Applicant is not an authorized party, as defined in paragraphs 1 and 7 of Article 113 of the Constitution and Rule 39 (1) (a) of the Rules of Procedure, to file a Referral against a Judgment, which has been rendered in proceedings where the Applicant had not been a party to the proceedings or by which no decision was rendered regarding his/her rights.