Constitutional Court

KI02/18 Applicant: The Government of the Republic of Kosovo [Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning], Constitutional review of Decision Rev. No. 232/2017 of the Supreme Court of Kosovo of 15 November 2017

 KI02/18 Resolution on Inadmissibility of 20 June 2019, published on 17 July 2019

Keywords: Individual referral, request for non-disclosure of identity, property dispute, inadmissible referral

 The Applicant submitted a Referral to the Court requesting the constitutional review of Decision Rev. No. 232/2017 of the Supreme Court of Kosovo of 15 November 2017.

The Applicant before the Constitutional Court initially alleges that the courts did not act correctly when adjudicating the amount of compensation in favor of the owner of the expropriated plots. In this regard, the Applicant emphasized the following: “based on the evidence, sketches from the field, photos showing that the facility was out of use, is not far from the expropriation line but the owners have prevented the continuation of the works until the Ministry of Infrastructure was forced to construct a wall 105 m long and 1.5 wide, so it allowed the continuation of the works”. According to the Applicant, these are convincing evidence that the facility was not demolished by the Ministry of Infrastructure, but the claimant [interested party, F.I.TH.] and the contractor did it willingly.

 The Applicant alleges that the Supreme Court by the challenged decision violated its rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution, without specifying any specific provision of the Constitution, which could have been violated.

The Court found that the Applicant’s Referral does not clearly and adequately specify what rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution have allegedly been violated, and as such, the Referral should be rejected for failure to meet the admissibility requirements provided for in Article 48 of the Law in conjunction with Rule 39 (1) (d) of the Rules of Procedure.

As to the request for non-disclosure of identity, the Court, based on the complete lack of reasoning by the Applicant as to why its identity should not be disclosed, the Court finds that such request should be rejected as ungrounded. (See another case of the Constitutional Court where a request for non-disclosure of identity was filed, KI74/17, Applicant Lorenc Kolgjeraj, Resolution on Inadmissibility of 5 December 2017).