Constitutional Court

KI200/18 Applicant: Sokol Haziraj, Constitutional review of Judgment Rev. No. 261/2018 of the Supreme Court of 30 October 2018 

KI200/18 Resolution on Inadmissibility, of 4 September 2019, published on 26 September 2019

Keywords: Individual referral, inadmissible revision, manifestly ill-founded referral, inadmissible referral.

The Applicant alleges that the Supreme Court, by the challenged Decision, Rev. No. 261/2018, rejecting his request for revision as inadmissible, violated his rights protected by Article 32 of the Constitution in conjunction with Article 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights, considering that his case as an intervener in the contested procedure, was not correctly examined by the regular courts.

In this regard, the Court considers that the Applicant’s allegations, which he raised in the Court of Appeals through an appeal and in the Supreme Court, through the request for revision, the courts concerned responded in a comprehensive manner, reasoning in detail their conclusions. In this case, the regular courts considered that the Applicant’s allegations were also taken into account by the District Court, which held that the appeals filed by claimant J.G. and the Applicant were ungrounded, thereby upholding Judgment C. No. 397/2006 of the Municipal Court in Prishtina, of 22 December 2009. The courts further assessed that the claimant and the Applicant against the Decision Ac. No. 240/2010 of the District Court of 14 May 2010, had also exhausted the extraordinary legal remedy, the revision, and in this case the Supreme Court, by Judgment Rev. Mlc. No. 217/2010 of 16 April 2010, dismissed the Applicant’s request as inadmissible, while the request for revision filed by claimant J.G. was rejected as ungrounded.

Therefore, the Court assessed that the Applicant had sufficient opportunity to present to the regular courts all the allegations of a violation of his rights. Moreover, the Court considered that his arguments were duly heard and properly examined by the regular courts.

In conclusion, the Court considers that the Referral, on constitutional basis, is manifestly ill-founded, because the Applicant did not sufficiently prove and substantiate his allegation of violation of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the Convention. Therefore, the Court concludes that the Referral is manifestly ill-founded on constitutional basis and, in accordance with Rule 39 (2) of the Rules of Procedure, it is to be declared inadmissible.