Constitutional Court

KI 64/20, Applicant: Asllan Meka, Constitutional review of Judgment, Rev. no. 2/2020 of the Supreme Court, of 19 February 2020

KI64/20, Resolution on Inadmissibility of 22 July 2020, published on 3 August 2020

Keywords: Individual referral, civil procedure, inadmissible referral, manifestly ill-founded referral

The Referral was submitted by Asllan Meka from Gjakova.

According to the case file, on 26 February 2008, the Applicant, along with three other persons, E.M., S.M. and SH.K.M, as a borrower, entered into a loan contract with the claimant A.K., as a lender, according to which they received a loan in amount of 35,000 (thirty five thousand) euros, for a repayment period of 1 (one) year. On an unspecified date, as the borrowers had not repaid the debt, the lender A.K. filed a claim with the Basic Court in Gjakova (hereinafter: the Basic Court) against the Applicants and other borrowers, E.M., S.M. and SH.K.M, for the repayment of debt of 35,000 (thirty five thousand) euros.

The Basic Court through Judgment [C. no. 301/14] approved the claim of the claimant A.K in in its entirety, and jointly obliged the Applicant and the other respondents E.M., S.M. and Sh.K.M, to pay to the claimant the amount of 35,000 (thirty five thousand) euros in the name of the repayment of debt under the loan contract, along with respective legal interest, which begins to run from 24.03.2010 onwards, until the definitive payment, in the amount as paid by commercial banks in Kosovo for funds deposited in the bank. The Court of Appeals also confirmed the Judgment of the Basic Court, whereas the Supreme Court rejected the revision filed by the Applicant.

The Applicant alleged that his rights guaranteed by Articles 31 [Right to Fair and Impartial Trial], 32 [Right to Legal Remedies] and 102 [General Principles of the Judicial System] of the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo, as well as Article 1 [Protection of property] of Protocol I, and Articles 6 [Right to a fair trial] and 13 [Right to an effective remedy] of the European Convention on Human Rights, have been violated.

The Court notes that all regular courts had addressed the Applicant’s allegations and found that the amount of 35,000 (thirty five thousand) euros was borrowed by the Applicant and persons E.M., S.M. and SH.K.M from the Claimant A.K., which is confirmed by the contract concluded between them and the receipt on delivery of money, and that this amount must be repaid to the lender.

In this respect, the Court further considers that the Applicant has failed to prove that the proceedings before the Supreme Court or other regular courts were unfair or arbitrary, or that his fundamental rights and freedoms protected by the Constitution were violated as a result of erroneous interpretation of the procedural law. The Court reiterates that the interpretation of the law is the duty of the regular courts and is a matter of legality. (See, the Case KI63/16, Applicant Astrit Pira, Resolution on Inadmissibility, of 8 August 2016, paragraph 44 and see also the Case KI150/15; KI161/15; KI162/15; KI14/16; KI19 / 16; KI60/16 and KI64/16, Applicants Arben Gjukaj, Hysni Hoxha, Driton Pruthi, Milazim Lushtaku, Esat Tahiri, Azem Duraku and Sami Lushtaku, Resolution on Inadmissibility, of 15 November 2016, paragraph 62).

In conclusion, pursuant to Rule 39 (2) of the Rules of Procedure the Referral is manifestly ill-founded on constitutional basis, and is consequently inadmissible.