Constitutional Court

The Applicant, in this case, claimed that the sixteen judgments of the Administrative Panel of the Supreme Court of Kosovo, violated its rights guaranteed by Articles: 12, 46, 121, 123 and 124 of the Constitution, as well as Article 1 Protocol 1 of the ECHR, The Applicant argued that the properties in the sixteen cases affected by the revocation of permits for temporary construction and the demolition orders of its Inspectorate of the Directorate for Urbanism and municipal properties for use for public purposes, Furthermore, the Applicant alleged that the judgments of the Supreme Court directly affect the Applicant’s ability to exercise its property rights and to regulate the use of municipal land, The Court notes that the Referral submitted by the Municipality of Klina pursuant to Article 113,4 of the Constitution, does not “contest the constitutionality of laws or acts of the Government”, but instead challenges sixteen decisions of the Supreme Court in administrative proceedings, As such, the Court considers that decisions of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kosovo in administrative proceedings are not acts or laws of the Government within the meaning of Article 113 (4) of the Constitution (See, mutatis mutandis, Municipality of Gjakova v, District Commercial Court, no, KO 123/10, Resolution of 21 May 2012), Consequently, the Court finds that the Applicant in this case is not an authorized party, as required by Article 113 (1) of the Constitution to challenge the decisions of the Supreme Court because those decisions are neither laws nor acts that the Applicant could have challenged pursuant to Article 113,4 of the Constitution