Constitutional Court

KI21/21, Applicant: Asllan Meka, Assessment of constitutionality of the Decision Ac. no. 4385/2020, of the Court of Appeals, of 15 December 2020 

KI21/21, Resolution on Inadmissibility, decided on 28 April 2021, published on 12 May 2021

Keywords: individual referral, request for imposition of an interim measure, unsubstantiated and unreasoned allegations, inadmissible referral.

The Applicant, prior to submitting the present Referral to the Court, on 21 April 2020 has submitted the Referral registered under the number KI64/20, by which he challenged the Judgment [Rev. No. 2/2020] of the Supreme Court, of 19 February 2020, issued in a contentious procedure, and during which procedure by the Judgment [C. no. 301/14] of the Basic Court, of 2 March 2015, was decided that the Applicant and the other defendants are obliged to pay to A.K., in the capacity of lender, the debt in the amount of 35, 000.00 euros. The Court, by Resolution on Inadmissibility, of 22 July 2020, decided that the Applicant’s allegations were inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded on constitutional grounds as defined in Rule 39 (2) of the Rules of Procedure. Whereas in the present Referral, filed with the Court, the Applicant challenges the Decision of the Court of Appeals issued in an enforcement procedure, in which procedure it was decided the enforcement of the above-mentioned Judgment [C. no. 301/14] of the Basic Court, of 2 March 2015, which become final on 8 November 2019. Consequently, the Private Enforcement Agent by the enforcement writ, had allowed the execution of the Judgment [C. no. 301/14] of the Basic Court, of 2 March 2015. As a result of the objection, filed by the Applicant and other debtors, the Basic Court by the Decision [PPP. No. 52/2020] of 15 July 2020, had rejected the objection against the enforcement writ. Subsequently, as a result of the appeal filed by the Applicant and the other debtors, the Court of Appeals, by its Decision [Ac. No. 4385/2020] of 15 December 2020, rejected their appeal as unfounded and upheld the Decision of the Basic Court.

In relation to the aforementioned Decision of the Court of Appeals, the Applicant alleges violation of Article 31 of the Constitution, in conjunction with Article 6 of the ECHR; Article 32 of the Constitution, in conjunction with Article 13 of the ECHR; and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 of the ECHR. Same as in the Referral KI64/20, the Applicant reiterates in the present Referral, that in his case there was no fair and impartial trial, claiming that the contracts were fictitious and imposed, and that here we are dealing with usury and not money lending. The Applicant in his Referral refers to the aforementioned Articles of the Constitution and the ECHR, alleging violation of the fundamental rights guaranteed by these Articles, but without elaborating and justifying at all how and why his rights guaranteed by the abovementioned Articles of the Constitution and the ECHR, have been violated.

The Court, after assessing the allegations of the Applicant, based on Article 48 of the Law and paragraphs (1) (d) and (2) of Rule 39 of the Rules of Procedure, as well as applying the standards of its case law of the Court itself and of the European Court of Human Rights, reiterated that (i) the parties in their referrals have an obligation to accurately clarify and adequately present the facts and allegations; and also (ii) to prove and sufficiently substantiate their allegations of violation of constitutional rights or provisions. The Court found that the Applicant’s allegations are “unsubstantiated or unreasoned”, and consequently his Referral was declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded on constitutional grounds, as set out in Article 48 of the Law and Rule 39 (1) and (2) of the Rules of Procedure. Subsequently, the Court also decided to reject his request for an interim measure.