Constitutional Court

KI101/19, Applicant: Lubisha Trajkoviq, Constitutional review of Decision AC-I-16-0209-A0001 of the Appellate Panel of the Special Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kosovo, of 7 February 2019

KI101/19, Resolution on Inadmissibility, adopted on 10 November 2020, published on 4 December 2020

Keywords: individual referral, property dispute, manifestly ill-founded referral, inadmissible referral

The Referral was submitted by Lubisha Trajkoviq, residing in Vranje, Serbia. The Applicant challenges the Decision [AC-I-16-0209-A0001] of the Appellate Panel of the Special Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kosovo (hereinafter: the Appellate Panel of the SCSC), of 7 February 2019.

The Applicant alleges that the Appellate Panel of the SCSC, by rejecting his appeal as unfounded, violated his rights protected by Articles 3, 24, and 46 of the Constitution. The Applicant’s main allegation was “non-implementation of the final  decision of the Municipality of Kamenica, the Commission on Land Restitution bearing the number:  04-453-9/91, of 24.11.1998.”

In assessing the Applicant’s allegations, the Court notes that the Applicant has failed to prove through any act before the Appellate Panel of the SCSC, that he is the heir of the property in question, hence the Court emphasizes that the Appellate Panel has acted correctly when dismissing his claim, due to the lack of lack of active legitimacy.

The Court states that the mere fact that the Applicant is not satisfied with the outcome of the Decision of the Appellate Panel of the SCSC or only the mentioning of Articles of the Constitution is not sufficient to build an allegation for a  constitutional violation. When alleging such violations of the Constitution, the Applicants must provide reasoned  allegations and compelling arguments. (See, in this context, the case of the Court KI136/  14, Abdullah Bajqinca, Resolution on Inadmissibility of 10 February 2015, paragraph 33; KI49/19, cited above, paragraph 58).

In conclusion, in accordance with Rule 39 (2) of the Rules of Procedure, the Court declared the Referral manifestly ill-founded on constitutional basis and, therefore, inadmissible.