Resolution

Constitutional review of Decision No. AC-I-17-0466-Aoo1 of the Appellate Panel of the Special Chamber of the Supreme Court of Kosovo on Privatization Agency of Kosovo Related Matters, of 12 April 2018

Case No. KI 78/18

Download:
Summary

KI78/18 – Constitutional review of Decision No. AC-I-17-0466-Aoo1 of the Appellate Panel of the Special Chamber of the Supreme Court of Kosovo on

Privatization Agency of Kosovo Related Matters, of 12 April 2018 

KI78/18, Applicant Pashk Malota

Resolution on Inadmissibility of 27 February 2019

Keywords: Individual referral, court tax, manifestly ill-founded 

The Applicant challenged the constitutionality of a Decision of the Appellate Panel of the SCSC. The latter concluded that the Applicant’s appeal had to be considered withdrawn as he had not paid the court fee of € 20.

The Applicant alleged that such a decision violated his rights guaranteed by Articles 21, 22, 53, 46 and 54 of the Constitution in conjunction with Article 6 of the ECHR. In this regard, he alleged that the Appellate Panel in violation of the legal provisions considered the appeal of the Applicant withdrawn and also denied him right of access to justice, namely access to the Court.

Referring to its case law and that of the ECtHR, the Court reiterated and reemphasized that it is not the role of the Constitutional Court to deal with errors of facts or law allegedly committed by the regular courts, when assessing evidence or applying the law (legality), unless and in so far as they may have infringed the rights and freedoms protected by the Constitution (constitutionality). In fact, it is the role of regular courts to interpret and apply the relevant rules of procedural and substantive law.

The Court finds that the Applicant failed to present evidence, facts and arguments indicating that the amount of the court fee for which the Applicant was liable, his opportunity to pay as well as the circumstances of his case in general have affected his right to access to the court as provided for in Article 31 of the Constitution and Article 6 of the ECHR.

Therefore, the Court concludes that the Referral was rejected as manifestly ill-founded on constitutional basis and is to be declared inadmissible, in accordance with Article 113.7 of the Constitution, Article 48 of the Law and Rule 39 (2) of the Rules of Procedure.

Applicant:

Pashk Malota

Type of Referral:

KI – Individual Referral

Type of act:

Resolution

Type of procedure followed before other institutions :

Civil