Constitutional Court

KI82/20, Applicant: Jakup Mehmeti, constitutional review of  Decision AC-I-16-0144-A0001 of the Appellate Panel of the Special Chamber of the Supreme Court on Privatization Agency of Kosovo Related Matters of 21 February 2020

KI82/20 Resolution on Inadmissibility, of 25 March 2021, published on 13 April 2021

Keywords: individual referral, right to a fair trial, protection of property, manifestly ill-founded referral, inadmissible referral

The Applicant before the Constitutional Court challenged Decision AC-I-16-00144-A0001, of the Appellate Panel of the Special Chamber of the Supreme Court, of 21 February 2020, on the Privatization Agency of Kosovo Related Matters, alleging violation of his rights, guaranteed by Articles: 31 [Right to Fair and Impartial Trial] and 46 [Protection of Property] of the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo, in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 [Protection of property] of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (hereinafter: ECHR).

Regarding the allegations of the Applicant of violation of the right to a fair trial, which according to the Applicant came as a result of erroneous application of the applicable law, the Court assessed that it (the Court) has consistently reiterated that, as a general rule, the allegations of erroneous interpretation and application of law, allegedly committed by the regular courts, relate to the scope of legality and as such, are not in the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court, and therefore, in principle, the Court cannot review them. In this context the Court recalled its cases KI06/17, Applicant L. G. and five others, Resolution on Inadmissibility of 25 October 2016, paragraph 36; case KI122/16, Applicant Riza Dembogaj, Judgment of 30 May 2018, paragraph 56; and case of the Court KI154/17 and KI05/18, Applicant, Basri Deva, Afërdita Deva and Limited liability company “Barbas”, Resolution on Inadmissibility of 28 August 2019, paragraph 60.

As for the Applicant’s allegation of violation of the property rights, the Court noted that in the circumstances of the present case we are not dealing with a property right acquired by a final court decision nor with a legitimate expectation, because the Applicant does not have an affirmative right, by which he proves and substantiates that he enjoys the right for returning the right to the disputed immovable property (see, similarly, ECtHR case Kopecký v. Slovakia [GC], principle set out in paragraph 52). In this circumstance, the Applicant cannot allege a violation of his property rights, as long as the SCSC Panels, in his case, considered only the procedural aspects of his complaint/claim, regarding the requests for de-expropriation and return in possession of the disputed immovable property.

In sum, the Court, based on the standards established in its case law and the case law of the ECtHR, found that the Applicant has not in any way proved and sufficiently substantiated his allegations of violation of the rights guaranteed by Article 31 of the Constitution, in conjunction with Article 6 of the ECHR, and Article 46 of the Constitution, in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol no. 1 of the ECHR. Therefore, the Applicant’s Referral on constitutional basis is manifestly ill-founded, therefore in accordance with Rule 39 (2) of the Rules of Procedure, it was declared inadmissible as manifestly ilol-founded.