Constitutional Court

KI132/19 Applicant: Kosovo Energy Corporation (KEK), constitutional review of Judgment ARJ-UZVP. No. 72/2018 of the Supreme Court of 16 April 2019

 KI 132/19, resolution on inadmissibility of 3 February 2021, published on 12 February 2021

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

The Referral is based on Article 21, paragraph 4 and 113.7 of the Constitution, Article 22 and 47 of the Law No. 03/L-121 on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Kosovo and Rule 32 of the Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court.

By Decision No. 12/168 of the Government of Kosovo of 29 January 2014, the Applicant has been allocated for 99 years a certain cadastral parcel for the purpose of installation of energy devices. Subsequently, the Cadastral Agency of Kosovo found that the Applicant did not install energy devices on the allocated plots, as provided by the decision, therefore, did not allow the registration of the right to use the disputed plots for 99 years to the Applicant.

The Applicant initiated an administrative procedure regarding the registration of the disputed parcels in the cadastral books.

This court proceeding went through all the stages of proceedings before the regular courts and this court proceeding was completed by a final judgment of the Supreme Court, which upheld the decisions of the Cadastre Agency, the Basic Court and the Court of Appeals.

The Court notes that the Applicant reiterates the same allegations he made before the regular courts, which essentially concern the interpretation of the relevant substantive law provisions by the regular courts.

The Court notes that the Applicant alleges violation of, (i) the rights guaranteed bz Article 3 [Equality Before the Law], Article 31 [Right to Fair and Impartial Trial], Article 54 [Judicial Protection of Rights] and Article 102 [General principles of the Judicial System], as well as (ii) Article 46 [Protection of Property] of the Constitution.

As regards the abovementioned violations of the rights guaranteed by Articles 31, 46, 54 and 102 of the Constitution, the Court recalls that it declares the submission inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded under criterion  „unsubstantiated or unsupported” allegations, when one of the two characteristic requirements is met, namely (a) when the applicant merely cites one or more provisions of the Convention or the Constitution, without explaining in what way they have been breached and (b) when the applicant omits or refuses to produce documentary evidence in support of his allegations (in particular, decisions of the courts or other domestic authorities).

The Court therefore finds that as regards these Applicant’s allegations of violation of the rights guaranteed by Articles 31, 46, 54 and 102 of the Constitution, the Court concludes that the Referral should be declared inadmissible in its entirety as manifestly ill-founded, because these Applicant’s allegations qualify as allegations falling into the category of (iii) “unsubstantiated or unsupported” allegations. Therefore, the latter are manifestly ill-founded on constitutional basis, as established in paragraph (2) of Rule 39 of the Rules of Procedure.