Constitutional Court

KI135/19, Applicant: Shkodran Hashani, Constitutional review of Judgment Ac. No. 2469/15 of the Court of Appeals of the Republic of Kosovo of 4 July 2019

KI135/19, Resolution on inadmissibility, of 7 October 2020, published on 6 November 2020

Keywords: individual referral, right to fair and impartial trial, manifestly ill-founded referral 

Based on the case file, it follows that as a result of a traffic accident that occurred between the Applicant and H.S, and after the latter’s lawsuit against the Applicant in the Basic Court in Prishtina, on 9 December 2014, the Basic Court in Prishtina by Judgment [C. No. 520/09] approved the lawsuit of H.S and obliged the Applicant to pay a certain amount of money to H.S in the name of compensation for material damage.

Following the Applicant’s appeal to the Court of Appeals, who essentially alleged that the expertise which had been carried out in relation to his case were not sent to the Applicant and the latter did not have the opportunity to comment or to challenge them, the Court of Appeals rejected as ungrounded the Applicant’s appeal.

The Applicant addressed the Office of the Chief State Prosecutor with a request for protection of legality, against the Judgment of the Court of Appeals, and the latter through the Notification rejected the request of the Applicant for filing a request for protection of legality.

The Applicant alleged that the challenged decision violated his rights guaranteed by Article 31 [Right to Fair and Impartial Trial] of the Constitution.

In essence, the Applicant before the Constitutional Court alleged that the regular courts did not give him the legal opportunity to comment on the expertise of the traffic expert, by not sending the latter to the Applicant and consequently he was not able to challenge them.

The Court, based on the case file, noted that the expertise of the traffic accident of 15 October 2014 and the expertise of the damage assessment of 27 October 2014, were sent to the Applicant’s address and the latter was received by N.H, the father of the Applicant on 12 November 2014, and consequently the Court considered that the Applicant has received the traffic expertise.

The Constitutional Court considered that the Applicant did not substantiate the allegations that the respective proceedings were in any way unfair or arbitrary and that the challenged decision violated the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. The Constitutional Court concluded that in accordance with Article 113.7 of the Constitution, Article 20 of the Law, and Rule 39 (2) of the Rules of Procedure, the Applicant’s Referral was manifestly ill-founded.