Constitutional Court

KI129/19, Applicant: Ramadan Koçinaj, constitutional review of Judgment Rev. No. 78/2019, of the Supreme Court of Kosovo, of 20 March 2019

KI129/19, Resolution on Inadmissibility, of 7 November 2019, published on 3 December 2019

Keywords: Individual referral, compensation of damage, disconnection from electricity network, manifestly ill-founded referral

The dispute for which the Applicant has filed a Referral with the Court relates to the debt billed by the Kosovo Energy Corporation (hereinafter: KEK) for the apartment located in the Sunny Hill neighborhood in Prishtina, with a surface area of ​​37 square meters, which the Applicant purchased in 2009 from the A. P. and which at different times was used by different persons. The Applicant filed a lawsuit against KEK with the Basic Court seeking compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage as a consequence of non-supply – disconnection of electrical energy and keeping the Applicant under pressure for the debt incurred by other persons, prior to July 2009, upheld by the decision of the Energy Regulatory Office. His requests were dismissed by the regular courts, which ended with Judgment Rev. No. 78/2019 of the Supreme Court of 20 March 2019.

The Applicant alleged before the Court that by the challenged decision, the Supreme Court violated his rights guaranteed by Articles 23 [Human Dignity], 24 [Equality Before the Law] and 31 [Right to Fair and Fair and Impartial Trial] of the Constitution.

As to the alleged violation of his right to a fair and impartial trial, guaranteed by Article 31 of the Constitution, the Applicant alleged, inter alia, that the regular courts did not properly address the allegations made by him, as they failed to correctly assess the evidence presented and the testimonies of witnesses and experts regarding the liability for damages caused to the Applicant by the unlawful request of KEK to pay the debt of the former occupants of the apartment; unlawful non-supply or disconnection from the power network of the Applicant’s apartment for the debt of the previous occupants of the apartment. After examining the allegations concerning the violation of the right to a fair trial, the Court found that the reasoning given by the regular courts, when referring to the Applicant’s allegations of a violation of procedural and substantive law, is clear and sufficient and the proceedings before the regular courts were not in any way unfair or arbitrary.

As to the Applicant’s allegation of a violation of Article 23 [Human Dignity] and 24 [Equality Before the Law], the Court held that the Applicant did not present any prima facie evidence nor did he substantiate his allegations that these rights have been violated by the regular courts. Therefore, the Court decided that the Referral is manifestly ill-founded on constitutional basis and is to be declared inadmissible.