Constitutional Court

KI126/19, Applicant: Lon Paluca, Constitutional review of Decision Rev. No. 67/2019 of the Supreme Court of Kosovo, of 20 March 2019

KI126/19, Resolution on Inadmissibility, of 13 November 2019, published on 9 December 2019

Keywords: individual referral, reopening of the proceedings, manifestly ill-founded referral, ratione materiae

The Applicant filed referral for the second time with the Constitutional Court in relation to his case, challenging various decisions of the regular courts. The first time, by Referral KI116/10, the Applicant challenged the Judgment [Rev. No. 286/2007], of the Supreme Court rejecting the Applicant’s revision as ungrounded, in respect of his claim for compensation for the expropriation of the Applicant’s immovable property which took place in 1977. The Court declared this Referral as manifestly ill-founded.

In the present Referral KI126/19, the Applicant challenges the Decision [Rev. no. 67/2019] of the Supreme Court of Kosovo of 20 March 2019, which rejected his request with regard to the reopening of the proceedings and which was completed with the Judgment [Rev. No. 286/2007] of the Supreme Court, and which was the subject of review before the Court through the Referral KI116/10.

The Applicant alleges that by the challenged decision in Referral KI126/19, the Supreme Court violated the right to fair and impartial trial guaranteed by Article 31 of the Constitution, Article 6 of the ECHR and Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as well as the right to equality before the law and protection of property guaranteed by Articles 24 and 46 of the Constitution.

In light of the foregoing, the Court, based also on its case law and the case law of the ECtHR, held that Article 31 [Right to Fair and Impartial Trial] of the Constitution, in conjunction with Article 6, paragraph 1 of the Convention does not apply to the Applicant’s proposal to reopen the proceedings. Consequently, the Court considers that the Applicant’s claim regarding the rejection by the regular courts to reopen the proceedings is incompatible ratione materiae with Article 31 of the Constitution in conjunction with Article 6 of the ECHR.

As to the Applicant’s allegation that the challenged decision of the Supreme Court violated his rights guaranteed by Articles 3 and 24 [Equality Before the Law], and 46 [Protection of Property] of the Constitution and Article 10 of the Universal Declaration, the Court held that the Applicant did not justify these violations in any way, but he merely stated the articles in question in an explicit manner.

For this reason, the Court considered that the Applicant’s Referral did not meet the procedural admissibility requirements, as established in the Constitution, and as further specified by the Law and Rules of Procedure, therefore, it is to be declared inadmissible.