The Constitutional Court has found that the Basic Court in Gjakova - Branch in Rahovec has violated the right to a trial within a reasonable time frame, of a citizen whose case has not been resolved for more than 40 years.
The applicant to the Court is said to have contested the length of the proceedings, stating that they have been ongoing for more than 40 years and that the Basic Court has not taken effective measures to conclude them.
"The Court found that in the circumstances of the applicant, the Basic Court in Gjakova - Branch in Rahovec violated his right to a trial within a reasonable time, guaranteed by paragraph 2 of Article 31 [Right to a 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," reads the Court's announcement of the decision taken following the complaint filed by citizen Muhamet Morina.
According to the Court's announcement, the circumstances of the case relate to a civil dispute that was initiated in 1978, when the applicant filed a lawsuit for the confirmation of the right of ownership over cadastral plots against several defendants.
On 25 September 1986, it is stated that the Municipal Court in Rahovec through Judgment [C. no. 221/79] approved the claim and confirmed the property right of the claimant over certain parcels.
also
Courts as violators of rights
“During the further development of the procedure, the case was interrupted several times and developed under different signs due to the death of the defendants and then the identified heirs. After holding preparatory hearings in 2022, respectively in 2023, the procedure was interrupted again, and on June 12, 2024, the Basic Court in Gjakova-Rahovec Branch through the Decision [C. no. 616/2023] interrupted the procedure again due to the death of one of the defendants. On October 4, 2024, the applicant proposed the continuation of the procedure, but the Basic Court through the Decision [C. no. 896/2024] of December 6, 2024, rejected his proposal and confirmed its decision to interrupt the session, with the reasoning that the identification of the heirs of the defendants is his obligation as a plaintiff. "On December 31, 2024, the applicant filed an appeal against the aforementioned Decision with the Court of Appeal," the announcement states.
Based on the information submitted, it is stated that the judicial procedure is still in the decision-making phase of the appeal in that court, which, as of the date of receipt of the latest data, has not yet made a decision.
The Court states that in the context of assessing the period taken into account, it notes that the applicant's case continued to be examined after 15 June 2008, when the Constitution entered into force, until the submission of his application to the Court, which is said to cover a period of over 18 years.
"The court found that, (i) although the case contains a certain degree of procedural complexity as a result of the death of the parties and inheritance issues, this does not justify the duration of the procedure in such a time frame; (ii) that the applicant did not contribute to the delay of the procedure, but in some cases initiated its continuation; and (iii) the actions taken by the competent authorities, although formally active, did not lead to the efficient continuation and completion of the judicial procedure," the announcement states.
also
Constitutional Court: The 18-year delay in a civil case in Gjakova violated the right to a timely trial
The Court emphasized that the state has an obligation to organize its judicial system in such a way as to enable the issuance of final decisions within a reasonable time limit, and that objective difficulties, such as the death of the parties and problems in identifying heirs, cannot justify the length of the procedure.
"The Court also emphasized that the long-term uncertainty regarding the right to property has serious consequences for the legal certainty and property rights of the applicant. Based on the above, the Court assessed that the judicial procedure, conducted during the period after the entry into force of the Constitution, has been unreasonably prolonged and that the regular courts have not ensured its efficient development," the announcement states.
