Constitutional Court

The Applicant in general complained against decisions of the first instance, where, the subject of challenge in all three presented cases was not the same, The Applicant alleged that the regular courts by their decisions have violated his constitutional rights, guaranteed by Article 31 of the Constitution, The Applicant requested from the Court, among others, the compensation of damage caused by KEK to the household (house appliances), because of the interruption of electrical energy; removal of obstacles to the possession of his property, which is obstructed by KEK electrical network and compensation of the damage caused by the termination of pension, In this case, the Court stated that the Applicant had the opportunity to raise the alleged violations of the constitutional rights for judicial bias, which he was raising before the Constitutional Court, to the higher instances such as the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, For the foregoing reasons, the Court concluded that the Applicant’s Referral did not meet the admissibility criteria, as required by Article 113,7 of the Constitution, Article 47,2 of the Law and Rule 36 (1) a) of the Rules of Procedure, therefore, pursuant to Article 46 [Admissibility] of the Law, the Referral is found inadmissible