Constitutional Court

KI41 / 19, Applicant: Ramadan Koçinaj, Constitutional review of Judgment AA.no.395/2018, of the Court of Appeals, of 13 September 2018. 

KI41/19, Resolution on Inadmissibility, adopted on 15 January 2020, published on 11 February 2020

Keywords: individual referral, civil proceedings, court proceedings, manifestly ill-founded referral, inadmissible referral

The Applicant raises allegations for a violation of Article 46, in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the ECHR, the Applicant alleges that the Judgment of the Court of Appeals, AA.no.395/2018, in conjunction with the decisions of the lower instance courts, prevented him from partitioning and registering the property in order to be issued the permission for constructing a house.

The Applicant alleged that the Judgment of the Court of Appeals, AA.no.395/2018 of 13 September 2018, violated his human rights and fundamental freedoms guaranteed by Article 22 [Direct Applicability of International Agreements and Instruments] and Article 46 [Protection of Property], of the Constitution and Article 1 of Protocol 1 (Protection of property) of the ECHR.

With regard to the allegation that the administrative bodies and the regular courts have violated the rights guaranteed by Article 46 [Protection of Property] in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol 1 to the ECHR when rejecting his request for parcellation and registration of the property, in order to be issued a permit to construct a house, the Court decided that the Referral should be declared inadmissible, as manifestly ill-founded on constitutional grounds, pursuant to Rule 39 (2) of the Rules of Procedure.

As to the Applicant’s allegations of expropriation, the Court decided that the Referral must be declared inadmissible because the Applicant has not exhausted his legal remedies as required by Article 113.7 of the Constitution, Article 47.2 of the Law and Rule 39.1 (b) of the Rules of Procedure.

As to the request for non-disclosure of identity, the Court decided to reject it because it considered that that justification does not present sufficient arguments for the approval of the said request.

The Court finally held that the Applicant did not substantiate his Referral for a violation of a constitutionally protected right. The Court found that the Applicant’s Referral remains manifestly ill-founded and is consequently inadmissible.