The Constitutional Court finds that the court violated the rights of a citizen

Following a citizen's complaint, the Constitutional Court has found that the duration of a judicial procedure regarding property compensation, for more than 11 years, has violated his right to a trial within a reasonable time frame, guaranteed by Article 31 of the Constitution. This court has ordered the Constitutional Court to conclude the case with increased priority and dynamics, within the shortest possible time frame and in accordance with the findings of the Constitutional Court.

The Constitutional Court found on Friday that the regular courts violated the fundamental rights of a citizen guaranteed by the highest legal act of the state. The decision was made following a request filed by Blerim Kopreshi, through which the constitutionality of the duration of the procedure in a case at the Basic Court in Prizren was sought.

“The Court, unanimously (i) declared the request admissible; and (ii) found that there had been a violation of paragraph 2 of Article 31 [Right to a Fair and Impartial Trial] of the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo and paragraph 1 of Article 6 (Right to a Fair Trial) of the European Convention on Human Rights,” reads the Constitutional Court’s announcement on this case.

According to the court's information, the circumstances of the case are related to the request for annulment of the decision regarding the declaration of the disputed property as an area of ​​general interest and the final decision to expropriate the disputed property by the Municipal Assembly of Prizren, in administrative proceedings.

The case has been in court since 2014.

“The applicant challenged before the Court the length of the judicial proceedings in his case, claiming that his right to a decision within a reasonable time, guaranteed by paragraph 2 of Article 31 [Right to a Fair and Impartial Trial] of the Constitution in conjunction with Article 6 (Right to a Due Process) of the European Convention on Human Rights, had been violated. He also claimed that the lack of compensation for more than a decade was a fundamental violation of the right to property, because the applicant was deprived of his property without compensation and without due legal procedure, violating the right to property guaranteed by Article 46 [Protection of Property] of the Constitution,” the court’s announcement states.

In assessing the applicant's claims, the Court has elaborated on  the general principles of its case-law and the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights concerning the right to a decision within a reasonable time, and then applied them to the circumstances of the specific case.

“The Court found that the duration of the proceedings conducted in relation to the case [C. no. 77/20] in the Basic Court of more than 11 (eleven) years is unreasonable, because: (i) the applicant's case does not result to be of an extremely complex nature to justify the excessive duration found only in the first instance; (ii) the applicant was relatively active in resolving his case; and that (iii) the Basic Court, despite the procedural actions it had taken in holding only one court session and the actions regarding the lack of subject matter jurisdiction, has declared that it is still in the decision-making process, resulting in being slow and inefficient in resolving the case within a reasonable time frame,” the Constitutional Court's announcement states.

The Court found that the duration of the proceedings in this case for more than 11 years and only after the case was returned to subject-matter jurisdiction, about 5 years without any hearing being held, violated his right to a trial within a reasonable time, guaranteed by Article 31 of the Constitution in conjunction with Article 6 of the ECHR.

The Constitutional Court has decided that after the publication of its Judgment, the Basic Court must take all necessary steps to conclude the applicant's legal case with increased priority and dynamism, within the shortest possible time frame and in accordance with the Court's findings.