Constitutional Court

KI60/19 Applicant: Srđan Stolić, constitutional review of Decision AC-I.-18-0366-A0001 of the Appellate Panel of the Special Chamber of the Supreme Court on the Privatization Agency of Kosovo Related Matters of 24 January 2019

KI60/19, resolution on inadmissibility of 1 July 2020, published on 29 July 2020

Keywords: individual referral, constitutional review of the challenged decision of the Appellate Panel of the Supreme Court, manifestly ill-founded

The Referral was based on Article 113.7 of the Constitution, Articles 22 and 47 of the Law No. 03/L-121 on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Kosovo, and Rule 32 of the Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court.

In 2014, the company SOE “Agro Morava” Viti entered the liquidation process, the Applicant as a former employee of the abovementioned SOE, submitted a claim to the Liquidation Authority for unpaid personal income for the period from July 1999 to November 2005.

This court proceeding ended with a final decision of the Appellate Panel of the Supreme Court, by which the Applicant’s appeal was considered withdrawn due to non-payment of the court fees even though this was requested by the Applicant, as well as the Applicant did not justify the reason for non-payment of court fees with accompanying documentation.

Against this decision, the Applicant filed an appeal with the Appellate Panel requesting a review of the decision. The Appellate Panel rejected as inadmissible this submission of the Applicant for reconsideration of the final decision on the grounds that the request was filed out of the time limit provided by law.

With regard to this submission of the Applicant and the response of the Appellate Panel, the Court shall not further enter the constitutional review of the decision of the Appellate Panel. Consequently, the Court considers that the “final decision” (the last effective legal remedy), in accordance with Rule 39 (1) (c) and the case law of the Court, in the case of the Applicant was the Decision of the Appellate Panel.

With regard to the first decision of the Appellate Panel, the Appellate Panel explained to the Applicant what is meant by the word “submission” and that the determination of court fees to be paid at the time of filing the submission is based on the value of the dispute. Furthermore, the Appellate Panel clarified to the Applicant that, under the LCP, the claimant is obliged to attach to the claim a certificate of the court fee that has been paid, and that if the tax has not been paid, then the claim is considered withdrawn, namely it will not be considered.

The Court finds that all the issues which were important to decide on the non-payment of the court fee by the Applicant were duly examined by the Appellate Panel. All material and legal reasons related to the challenged decision were sufficiently analyzed. Therefore, the Court concludes that the Appellate Panel did not deal with the content of the Applicant’s claim because the requirements for its review were not met, as stated in the reasoning.

The Court finds that all the issues which were important to decide on the non-payment of the court fee by the Applicant were duly examined by the Appellate Panel. All material and legal reasons related to the challenged decision were sufficiently analyzed. Therefore, the Court concludes that the Appellate Panel did not deal with the content of the Applicant’s claim because the requirements for its review were not met, as stated in the reasoning.