- The Constitutional Court
KI183 / 20, Applicant: Naser Husaj, Constitutional review of Decision AC. no. 4568/17 of the Court of Appeal, of 18 June 2020
KI183/20, Resolution on inadmissibility, of13 April 2021, published on xx xx 2021
Keywords: individual referral, property dispute, judicial protection of rights, manifestly ill-founded referral, inadmissible referral
The Applicant challenged before the Constitutional Court, the Decision AC-II-15-0042 of the Appellate Panel of the Special Chamber of the Supreme Court on Privatization Agency of Kosovo Related Matters, of 21 July, alleging a violation of the rights guaranteed by Articles 53 [Interpretation of Human Rights Provisions] and 54 [Judicial Protection of Rights] of the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo. The Applicant’s allegation for violation of constitutional rights is related to the fact that “The Court of the first instance in Peja by decision C.no.175/16 of 14.9.2017 failed to act in accordance with the instructions of the Decision AC-no-3152/13 of the Court of Appeals, of 12.3. 2014, seeking to verify where is basement no.9 located, and it did not establish who was the last one to possess this basement. The court did not visit the scene, it is only the geodesy expert that showed up there, hence it has not been established…”
In this case, the Court noted that the essence of the allegations for violation of guaranteed rights relates to Article 53 [Interpretation of Human Rights Provisions] and Article 54 [Judicial Protection of Rights] of the Constitution, which the Applicant does not further explain or justify. In regard to these allegations, the Court notes that the Applicant only mentions the relevant articles, but does not further elaborate on how and why have these relevant Articles of the Constitution been violated. The Court recalls that it has consistently reiterated that the mere reference to the Articles of the Constitution and the ECHR is not sufficient to build a substantiated claim for constitutional violation. When alleging such violations of the Constitution, the applicants must provide reasoned allegations and compelling arguments (see, in this context, the cases of the Constitutional Court KI136/14, Applicant: Abdullah Bajqinca, Resolution on Inadmissibility, paragraph 33; KI187/18 and KI11/19, Applicant: Muhamet Idrizi Resolution on Inadmissibility, of 29 July 2019, paragraph 73, and most recently the case KI125/19 Applicant: Ismajl Bajgora, Resolution on Inadmissibility, of 11 March 2020, paragraph 63).
Therefore, the Court concludes that the Referral must be declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded, since these allegations are considered as allegations pertaining to the category of (iii) “unsubstantiated or unjustified” claims because the Applicant has merely cited one or more provisions of the Convention or the Constitution, without explaining how they have been violated. Therefore, they are manifestly ill-founded on constitutional basis, as provided for by paragraph (2) of Rule 39 of the Rules of Procedure.
KI – Individual Referral
Referral is manifestly ill-founded