Constitutional Court

KI10/21, Applicant: D.P.H “DENI” with owner Asdren Salihu, Constitutional review of Decision Ac.no. 1129/2019 of the Court of Appeals , of 16 November 2020

KI10/21, Resolution of 13 April 2021, published on 26 April 2021

Keywords: individual referral, manifestly ill founded

The circumstances of the case relate to the non-compliance with the loan agreements concluded between the Applicant and the respective bank. The Bank, namely the Creditor, had requested from the Private Enforcement Agent to allow the respective enforcement against the Applicant. The Private Enforcement Agent by the Writ of Enforcement [P.no. 313/2017] had allowed the enforcement which was challenged by objection by the Applicant. The Applicant, among other things, through its objection had presented the issue of the bank account statement, the balance of which on 25 March 2015 had turned out to be 0.00 euros. The Basic Court initially reasoned to the Applicant that he had not attached evidence, whilst following the appeal procedure, the Court of Appeals stated that the fact that the balance of the bank statement turns out to 0.00 euros does not mean that the loan has been repaid in full.

Consequently, the latter is the essence of the Applicant’s allegations before the Court, which claims to have repaid the loan in full, by referring to the bank account statement.

The Court initially stated its position that it is not the duty of the Constitutional Court to deal with the way in which the regular courts have reached the findings on factual situation and made relevant legal interpretations (legality) unless and in so far as such interpretations may have infringed the fundamental rights and fundamental protected by the Constitution (constitutionality).

The Court considered that the decisions of the regular courts have sufficiently addressed the Applicant’s allegations and have not violated the Applicant’s fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by Article 31 of the Constitution. Taking into account the allegations raised by the Applicant for erroneous determination of facts in respect of the bank statement, the Court considers them as manifestly ill-founded on constitutional basis, and therefore, declares them inadmissible, pursuant to Rule 39 ( 2) of the Rules of Procedure.