Constitutional Court

The Applicant filed a Referral pursuant to Article 113.7 of the Constitution, contending that his rights under Articles 24.1, 31.1 and 54 were infringed by the State Prosecutor’s determination that there were no grounds for a protection of legality procedure concerning the sale of his immovable property to a creditor over the Applicant’s objection, by the Ferizaj Municipal Court’s failure to deliver its execution decision to him and by the Prishtina District Court’s rejection of his appeal of the sale. The Applicant requested an interim measure prohibiting the sale of property, The Court held that the Referral was manifestly ill-founded and inadmissible pursuant to Rule 36.1(c) of the Rules of Procedure because the Applicant failed to prove that the District Court’s decision was unfair or tainted by arbitrariness, citing Shub v. Lithuania and Vanek v. Slovak Republic, adding that the District Court gave careful consideration to the Municipal Court’s handling of the proceedings, and that the State Prosecutor found no legal grounds for a protection of legality procedure, The Court rejected the delivery claim pursuant to Rule 36.3(e) because it was resolved previously, It noted that the Court’s role is limited to resolving allegations of constitutional violations and that it is not competent to dispose of alleged factual or legal challenges outside of a constitutional context, which applies to judgment execution proceedings, citing Hornsby v. Greece, Edwards v. United Kingdom. The Court denied the request for interim measures pursuant to Article 27 of the Law on the Constitutional Court and Rule 54.1 of the Rules of Procedure in view of the Referral’s inadmissibility