Constitutional Court

KI 81/17, Applicant: Rapsina Muslija, Constitutional review of Decision AA no. 4436/2016 of the Court of Appeals of Kosovo of 22 December 2016

KI 81/17, Resolution on inadmissibility of 22 February 2018, published on 23 April 2018

Key words: individual referral, constitutional review of the decision of the Court of Appeals, preliminary injunction, out of time referral

The Referral was submitted based on Article 113, paragraphs 1 and 7, of the Constitution, Article 47 of Law no. 03/L-121 on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Kosovo, and Rule 29 of the Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Kosovo.

The Applicant submitted a claim with the Basic Court in Prizren to annul the mortgage contract entered into by the Applicant and Respondents A.M. and ProCredit Bank headquartered in Prishtina. Along with her claim, she submitted a proposal for imposing a preliminary injunction to suspend the legal transfer, the burden of the disputed cadastral parcel, and all executive actions in the executive proceedings pending the completion of the contested proceedings.

The Applicant filed an appeal against the Decision of the Basic Court with the Court of Appeals which on 22 December 2016 rendered Decision AA. no. 4436/2016 rejecting the Applicant’s appeal as ungrounded and upholding Decision P. no. 650/16 of the Basic Court of Prizren of 2 August 2016.

The Applicant filed a revision with the Supreme Court of Kosovo against the Decision of the Court of Appeals. On 20 April 2017, the Supreme Court, by its Decision Rev. no. 78/2017, rejected the Applicant’s revision as inadmissible.

The Applicant alleges that the decisions of the ordinary courts whereby the preliminary injunction was annulled had violated her rights guaranteed by Articles 24 and 31 of the Constitution.

The Court notes that the Court of Appeals rendered its decision on 22 December 2016; the decision was served on the Applicant on 10 January 2017, and the Applicant submitted her Referral to the Court on 12 July 2017.

The Court recalls that the four-month time limit starts to run on the date upon which an Applicant is served with a final decision.

The Court finds that the Referral was not filed within the time limit set forth by Article 49 of the Law and Rule 36 (1) (c) of the Rules of Procedure.

Therefore, the Court concluded that the Applicant’s referral was inadmissible because it was filed out of time.