Constitutional Court

KI62/19, Applicant: Gani Gashi, constitutional review of Judgment GSK-KPA-A-243/15 of the Supreme Court of Kosovo, of 4 December 2018

KI62/19, Resolution on Inadmissibility, of 13 November 2019, published on 19 December 2019

Keywords: individual referral, manifestly ill-founded referral, ratione temporis

The Applicant submitting the Referral to the Constitutional Court, challenged the Judgment [GSK-KPA-A-243/15] of the Supreme Court of Kosovo of 4 December 2018, which rejected as unfounded the Applicant’s appeal filed against the Decision [KPPC/D/R/ 263/2014] of the Kosovo Property Claims Commission, of 21 October 2014.

The facts of the case were separately presented by the Court because of the two court procedures conducted in this case.

In the first procedure concerning the allocation of the apartment, the Housing and Property Commission by Decision [HPCC/REC/66/2006] of 30 August 2006 rejected as unfounded the claim of the Applicant and M.B. on the ground that neither party had sufficiently proven their property right to the disputable property. The judgment became res judicata on 27 September 2006.

On 22 December 2007, S.D. in the capacity of the family member of M.B., as the alleged holder of the property right, had filed a claim with the Kosovo Property Agency seeking repossession of the disputable property.

The Kosovo Property Claims Commission, by the aforementioned decision, dismissed the claim of S.D. stating that this case was a matter judged (res judicata), justifying that on the basis of the evidence submitted by the parties, her same claim submitted for the same residence and secured ex officio had resulted to be a matter that was decided by a final decision.

The Applicant, in relation to the first procedure resulting in a final decision, alleged that his rights guaranteed by Article 24 [Equality before the Law] of the Constitution had been violated, while as regards the second judicial allegation the Applicant alleged that the Supreme Court had not taken into account the Applicant’s allegations.

The Court ascertained that the Referral concerning the Applicant’s allegation relating to the first court procedure was inadmissible because it is incompatible ratione temporis with the Constitution.

As regards the second court procedure, the Court found that the Applicant had not substantiated his claim in relation to the confirmation of the property right.