Resolution

Constitutional review of Decision AC-I-17-0032-A0001 of the Appellate Panel of the Special Chamber of the Supreme Court of Kosovo on Privatization Agency of Kosovo Related Matters, of 26 December 2019

Case No. KI 13/20

Download:
Summary

KI13/20, Applicant: Hidajet Canziba, Constitutional review of Decision AC-I-17-0032-A0001 of the Appellate Panel of the Special Chamber of the Supreme Court of Kosovo on Privatization Agency of Kosovo Related Matters, of 26 December 2019

KI13/20, resolution on inadmissibility of 18 February 2021, published on 24 March 2021

Keywords: individual referral, manifestly ill-founded, resolution on inadmissibility

The Applicant’s main allegation concerns a violation of the rights guaranteed by Article 31 [Right to Fair and Impartial Trial], Article 46 [Protection of Property] of the Constitution, and Article 6 (Right to a fair trial) of the ECHR, as a result of the non-issuance of a judgment by the SCSC that would confirm the right of ownership over the disputable property, which, he claims, to have inherited from his father I.C.

The court first noted that the SCSC had rejected his appeal. The reasons for rejecting the Applicant’s complaint were based on the relevant provisions of the LCP and the Law on the SCSC, which it considered relevant in respect of the circumstances of the present case and the substantial allegations raised by the Applicant.

The Court noted that the Specialized Panel of the SCSC had rejected the Applicant’s appeal due to the lack of passive legitimacy. Whereas, the Appellate Panel of the SCSC had considered the Applicant’s Referral as withdrawn on the grounds that the Applicant did not pay the court fee nor had he submitted a request for exemption from the obligation to pay the court fee.

The Court noted that the rejection of the request for revision by the Appellate Panel of the SCSC is directly related to the Applicant’s failure to pay the court fee pursuant to Article 253, paragraph 4 of the LCP or his failure to submit a request for exemption from the court fee.

Therefore, based on all what was explained above, the Court considers that the Applicant’s Referral is manifestly ill-founded on constitutional basis and as such must be declared inadmissible, pursuant to Rule 39 (2) of the Rules of Procedure.

Applicant:

Hidajet Canziba

Type of Referral:

KI – Individual Referral

Type of act:

Resolution

Referral is manifestly ill-founded

Type of procedure followed before other institutions :

Civil