Constitutional Court

KI119/20, Applicant: Lutfi Beselica; Constitutional review of Judgment AC-I.-17-0496-A001 of the Appellate Panel of the Special Chamber of the Supreme Court of Kosovo on Privatization Agency of Kosovo Related Matters, of 24 June 2020

KI119/20, Resolution on Inadmissibility of 10 December 2020, published on 5 January 2021

Keywords: individual referral, constitutional review of the challenged judgment of the Special Chamber of the Supreme Court, manifestly ill-founded

The Referral is based on Article 113.7 of the Constitution, Articles 22 and 47 of the Law on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Kosovo No. 03/L-121 and Rule 32 of the Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court.

On 7 February 2007, the Applicant filed a statement of claim with the Municipal Court in Podujevë for confirmation of  ownership over the cadastral parcel no. 1359 at a location called „Malishte“  in the total area of ​​05.84.44 ha (hereinafter: the disputable parcel); in the proceedings before the Municipal Court in Podujevë the Applicant has referred to the contract on sale Vr. No. 309/95 of 18 April 1995 as the basis on which he has acquired the ownership over the said propery .

Given that the Basic Court was incompetent to decide on this matter, the case was referred to the Special Chamber of the Supreme Court of Kosovo on Privatization Agency of Kosovo Related Matters (hereinafter: the Special Chamber) for further jurisdiction.

The Specialized Panel  of the Special Chamber approved the Applicant’s statement of claim and recognized his right over the disputable parcel.

On the basis of the appeal of the PAK, the Appellate Panel modifed the judgment of the Specialized Panel of the Special Chamber by rejecting the Applicant’s claim. The Appellate Panel found that the Specialized Panel has  determined the factual situation in a completely erroneous manner, and that there have been many contradictions, illogicalities and deficiencies in the attached documents during the process of proving the ownership,  therefore the Applicant’s ownership over the disputable immovable property could not be proved on that basis.

The Court emphasizes that the Applicant does not substantiate in any way his allegations for a violation of his rights. In fact, the Court points out that the Applicant has had an effective remedy at his disposal and that the failure to meet the deadlines for filing statements of claim and appeals could in no way result in arguable allegations for violation of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

In the circumstances of the present case, the Court considers that the Applicant has not acurately clarified the facts and allegations for violation of the above articles of the Constitution and consequently, these allegations must be declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded, as established in paragraph (2) of Rule  39 of the Rules of Procedure.