Decisions published in May 2024

In 2024, in the Constitutional Court:

• twenty (20) cases were reviewed;
• decisions were rendered for eighteen (18) cases:
• five (5) decisions were published;

In this period, on the Constitutional Court’s webpage are published (i) one (1) Judgment; (ii) two (2) Resolutions on Inadmissibility; and (iii) two (2) Decisions.

Judgments
_______________________________
I.
1. KI121/22
Applicant: Mexhid Asllani, Ekrem Asllani and Nuredin Xhaferi
Published on: 17 May 2024
Request for constitutional review of Decision [Rev. no. 434/2022] of 24 May 2022 for supplementation of Judgment [Rev. no. 426/2021] of 29 June 2021 of the Supreme Court and Judgment [Ac. no. 1148/2018] of the Court of Appeals of 4 March 2020

The Court assessed the constitutionality Decision [Rev. no. 434/2022] of 24 May 2022 for supplementation of Judgment [Rev. no. 426/2021] of 29 June 2021 of the Supreme Court and Judgment [Ac. no. 1148/2018] of the Court of Appeals of 4 March 2020. The circumstances of the present case are related to a civil dispute between the applicants and “Sigal Uniqua Group Austria” insurance company, regarding a traffic accident that occurred on the Ferizaj – Kaçanik highway, in which the applicants suffered bodily injuries. As a result, the applicants, on 15 July 2015, filed a lawsuit for compensation of material and non-material damage with the Basic Court in Ferizaj. The latter had partially approved their lawsuit, awarding each of the applicants a certain monetary amount. Dissatisfied with the amount of the compensation, the applicants and “Sigal Uniqua Group Austria” filed appeals against the aforementioned Judgment of the Basic Court with the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals, on 4 March 2020, decided only in relation to the appeal of the respondent “Sigal Uniqua Group Austria” , but not on the appeal of the applicants. As a result, upon being served with the judgment of the Court of Appeals, the applicants, as well as the respondent “Sigal Uniqua Group Austria” , submitted a request for revision to the Supreme Court. The latter, on 29 June 2021, rendered Judgment [Rev. no. 426/2021], by which it rejected the revision of the respondent “Sigal Uniqua Group Austria” in entirety, but did not decide on the request for revision of the applicants. The latter, had repeatedly addressed the Supreme Court and as a result, the Supreme Court rendered a supplementary Decision [Rev. no. 434/2022], on 24 May 2022, by which it rejected as impermissible the revision of the applicants, due to the value of the dispute under the amount of three thousand (3,000) euro for each applicant.

The applicants before the Constitutional Court challenged the aforementioned decisions, claiming violation of their rights guaranteed by Article 31 [Right to Fair and Impartial Trial], in conjunction with paragraph 1 of Article 6 (Right to a fair trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights. In essence, the applicants claimed the violation of their right to “access to justice” by (i) the Court of Appeals, on the grounds of non-consideration of their appeal; and (ii) the Supreme Court, due to the non-consideration of the essential allegation of denial of justice and legal remedy by the Court of Appeals. In assessing the applicants’ allegations, the Court first (i) elaborated on the general principles of its case law and that of the European Court of Human Rights, regarding the principle of access to justice; and (ii) then applied the latter to the circumstances of the present case, recalling that, in principle, the right to fair and impartial trial, namely access to justice, does not reflect only the right to initiate proceedings, but also the right to receive a resolution of the relevant dispute from an independent court established by law. In this regard, the Court first examined the claims of the applicants regarding the violation of the right to access to justice by the Court of Appeals, concluding that the latter, by not handling the appeal of 31 August 2017, nor by Judgment [Ac. no. 1148/2018] of 4 March 2020, nor by any special decision, made it impossible for the applicants to examine the essence of the claims raised in the appeal, against the relevant Judgment of the Basic Court. On the other hand, in relation to the violations alleged by the Supreme Court, the Court assessed that this court should focus on the essence of the violation claimed by the applicants, which was the right to a legal remedy before the Court of Appeals, and not accept as correct Judgment [Ac. no. 1148/2018] of 4 March 2020 of the Court of Appeals, which did not decide on the civil rights and obligations of the applicants, but on those of the respondent, namely, “Sigal Uniqua Group Austria”. Consequently, and as explained in detail in the published Judgment, the Court concluded that the Decision [Rev. no. 434/2022] of 24 May 2022 to supplement Judgment [Rev. no 426/2021] of 29 June 2021 of the Supreme Court of Kosovo, and Judgment [Ac. no. 1148/2018] of 4 March 2020 of the Court of Appeals were issued in violation of the constitutional rights of the Applicants, guaranteed by paragraph 1 of Article 31 [Right to Fair and Impartial Trial] of the Constitution, in conjunction with paragraph 1 of Article 6 [Right to a fair trial] of the European Convention on Human Rights.

This Judgment has also been supplemented with dissenting opinions.

You can read the notification regarding the Judgment by clicking here

You can read the full text of the Judgment and the summary in the two official languages of the Republic of Kosovo and in the English language, by clicking here

Resolutions on Inadmissibility
_______________________________
II.
In two (2) Resolutions on Inadmissibility published by the Court, the latter found that the Applicants’ Referrals are inadmissible based on paragraph 7 of Article 113 [Jurisdiction and Authorized Parties] of the Constitution, Article 48 (Accuracy of the Referral) of the Law, paragraph (2) of Rule 34 (Admissibility Criteria) of the Rules of Procedure because (i) the allegations of the Applicants reflect allegations with “apparent absence of a violation”, and/or (ii) the latter are “unsubstantiated or unreasoned”.

2. KI30/23
Applicant: Kosovo Telecom J.S.C.
Published on: 2 May 2024
Request for constitutional review of Judgment [AC-I-21-0618] of the Appellate Panel of the Special Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kosovo of 6 October 2022

You can read the full text of the Resolution and summary in two official languages of the Republic of Kosovo, by clicking here

3. KI76/23
Applicant: Suva Rechtsabteillung
Published on: 28 May 2024
Request for constitutional review of Judgment [E. Rev. 81/2021] of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kosovo of 8 October 2022

You can read the full text of the Resolution and summary in two official languages of the Republic of Kosovo, by clicking here

Decisions
_______________________________
III.
In one (1) Decision to reject the Referral published by the Court, the latter found that the Referral is rejected based on paragraph 7 of Article 113 [Jurisdiction and Authorized Parties] of the Constitution, Article 47 (Individual Requests) of the Law, item (b) paragraph (2) of Rule 54 (Dismissal and Rejection of Referrals) of the Rules of Procedure, because the latter is incomplete.

4. KI268/23
Applicant: Hysen Shehu
Published on: 2 May 2024
Request for constitutional review of unspecified act

You can read the full text of the Decision and summary in two official languages of the Republic of Kosovo, by clicking here

In one (1) Decision to dismiss the Referral published by the Court, the latter found that the Referral is rejected based on paragraph 7 of Article 113 [Jurisdiction and Authorized Parties] of the Constitution, Article 47 (Individual Requests) of the Law, item (a) paragraph (1) of Rule 54 (Dismissal and Rejection of Referrals) of the Rules of Procedure, , because the Decision contested by the applicant for constitutional violation is no longer an active controversy, as the latter was annulled by the Supreme Court and the issue of his detention was remanded for retrial.

5. KI115/23
Applicant: Bratislav Nikolić
Published on: 10 May 2024
Request for constitutional review of Decision [PN1. no. 422/2023], of the Court of Appeals of the Republic of Kosovo of 28 April 2023

You can read the full text of the Decision and summary in two official languages of the Republic of Kosovo, by clicking here

Note:

This notification was prepared by the Secretariat of the Court solely for informational purposes. The full texts of the decisions have been served on all parties involved in the cases and will be published in the Official Gazette of the Republic of Kosovo within the specified deadlines.