Resolution

Constitutional review of Judgment Rev. No. 264/2020 of the Supreme Court, of 3 September 2020

Case No. KI 45/21

Download:
Summary

KI45/21, Applicant: Samedin Bytyqi, Constitutional review of Judgment Rev. No. 264/2020 of the Supreme Court, of 3 September 2020

 KI45/21, Resolution on Inadmissibility of 20 May 2021, published on 2 June 2021

Keywords: individual referral, out of time referral

The Referral was submitted by Samedin Bytyqi from Gjakova, who challenged the Judgment [Rev. No. 264/2020] of 3 September 2020 of the Supreme Court.

The Applicant alleged a violation of 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 as well as Article 1 [Right to 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.

At the same time, the Applicant requested the Court to impose an interim measure which “will prevent the claimant from achieving his purpose unlawfully by taking our money in an unlawful manner”.

Initially, the Court referred to the date of submission of the final decision and the date of submission of the Referral to the Court to assess whether the Applicant submitted the Referral within the prescribed time limit of 4 (four) months.

In this regard, the Court recalls that the final decision in the Applicant’s case is the Judgment [Rev. No. 264/2020] of the Supreme Court, of 3 September 2020, and based on the acknowledgment of receipt, the Court noted that the Applicant was served with the challenged decision of 22 October 2020.

Consequently, the Court considered that the Applicant was served with the challenged decision on 22 October 2020, while he submitted the Referral to the Court by mail service on 26 February 2021, which means that the Applicant’s Referral was submitted out of the legal deadline.

Therefore, the Court found that the Applicant’s Referral was not filed within the legal deadline provided by Article 49 of the Law and Rule 39 (1) (c) of the Rules of Procedure. Consequently, the Court found that the Applicant’s Referral is inadmissible because it was submitted out of the legal deadline.

Also with regard to the request for an interim measure, as previously found by the Court that the Applicant’s referral is out of time, therefore, the Court concluded that the Applicant’s request for an interim measure should be rejected.

Applicant:

Samedin Bytyqi

Type of Referral:

KI – Individual Referral

Type of act:

Resolution

Referrals is filed out of time

Type of procedure followed before other institutions :

Civil