Constitutional Court

KI75/20, Applicant: Rrahman Rama, Constitutional Review of the Judgment Rev. No. 464/2019, of the Supreme Court of Kosovo, of 6 February 2020

 KI75/20, Resolution of 7 October 2021, published on 26 October 2021

Keywords: Individual referral, Right to Work and Exercise Profession 

The circumstances of the present case are related to the statement of claim filed by the Applicant against the Municipality of Podujeva due to the removal of the temporary prefabricated facility (kiosk). The Applicant’s statement of claim was subject to judicial review, whereby, the Basic Court initially upheld the Applicant’s statement of claim as grounded and obliged the Municipality of Podujeva to compensate the Applicant for the damage caused by the removal of the disputed facility. In the appeals procedure, the Court of Appeals annulled the judgment of the Basic Court, amending it in a way that the claimant’s statement of claim for compensation of damages was rejected as ungrounded. In addition, in the revision procedure, the Supreme Court rejected the Applicant’s request for revision, finding in that case that the judgment of the Court of Appeals is fair and lawful.

The Applicant challenges the Judgment of the Supreme Court in relation to the Judgment of the Court of Appeals, by which the Judgment of the Basic Court was annulled and amended, emphasizing the right to work and exercise profession.

However, in the Referral, the Court has not found specific allegations by which the Applicant justifies the violation of the said Article of the Constitution, whereby he puts the Court in such a position that it has no allegations made before it, on the basis of which the Court could consider the possibility of violation of Article of the Constitution referred to by the Applicant in the Referral.

In view of this, the Court, based on its case law and the case law of the ECtHR, finds that the Applicant’s allegations constitute “unsubstantiated or unsupported” allegations. This is because the Applicant merely mentioned a violation of an article of the Constitution, without giving any reasoning and without substantiating his allegations as to how the challenged Judgment of the Supreme Court, including the Judgment of the Court of Appeals, may have resulted in violation of his fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by Article 49 of the Constitution.

Therefore, the Court finds that the Applicant’s allegations of violation of Article 49 of the Constitution are “unsubstantiated or unsupported allegations”, and consequently inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded on constitutional basis.