Constitutional Court

KI58/18, Applicant: “IIC Assistance”, constitutional review of Judgment ARJ. UZVP No. 69/ 2017 of the Supreme Court, of 25 January 2018 

KI58/18, resolution on inadmissibility of 15 April 2020, published on 8 May 2020

Keywords: legal persons, individual referral, constitutional review of the challenged judgment of the Supreme Court, manifestly ill-founded

Since 2002, the Applicant based on Decision No. 009 of the Banking and Payment Authority of Kosovo engaged in the adjustment of losses or insurance business.

In 2013, following the procedure, the Central Bank of Kosovo as successor to the Banking and Payment Authority of Kosovo, due to established irregularities, revoked the Applicant’s license for adjustment of losses, namely engagement in insurance business.

The Applicant subsequently filed a lawsuit against the CBK with the Basic Court in Prishtina – Department for Administrative Matters, seeking the annulment of the CBK decision. This appeal was rejected by the Basic Court as ungrounded.

This appeal was also considered by the Court of Appeals and was remanded to the first instance court for retrial, after which the Basic Court again rejected the Applicant’s appeal as ungrounded, which was upheld both, by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.

The Applicant alleges that the regular courts violated its rights guaranteed by the Constitution, (i) the right to a reasoned decision,(ii) violation of principle of equality of arms  and (iii) the right to work and exercise profession.

The Court found that the arguments raised in the Referral by the Applicant do not in any way justify the alleged violations of the constitutional rights invoked by the Applicant, and that it has not substantiated its allegations of violation of the rights protected by the Constitution and the Convention, therefore, the Court concluded that the Applicant’s allegations, (i) with respect to the right to a reasoned decision are manifestly ill-founded on constitutional basis (ii) with respect to the violation of the principle of equality of arms, manifestly ill-founded on constitutional basis and (iii) with regard to the right to work and exercise professions, manifestly ill-founded on constitutional basis, and therefore, inadmissible, and all this in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 7 of Article 113 of the Constitution and paragraph (2) of Rule 39 of the Rules of Procedure.