Summary of Inadmissible and Rejected Complaints received by the Ombudsperson’s Office to date
2024
CASE 2024-01
Complaint: The complainant alleged a violation of his fundamental right to work and stated that he had been unlawfully dismissed from his post as a school teacher. The complainant alleged that the principal of the school concerned was engaged in a wide range of criminal activity including the hiring of close associates to positions within the local education system and which directly led to his dismissal and a refusal to reinstate him.
Assessment: The complainant did not assert any interaction with the Specialist Chambers and the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office. Therefore, in accordance with Rule 28(2) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the complaint fell outside the Ombudsperson’s Office jurisdiction and thus the Ombudsperson’s Office lacked competence to examine the complaint.
Conclusion: The complaint was rejected.
2023
CASE 2023-01
Complaint: The complainant alleged that he had encountered a number of issues while trying to resolve a dispute with a municipality over the alleged illegal use of a piece of his property by the municipality. The complainant alleges that proceedings had continued without resolution for several years and were eventually brought by him before the Kosovo Courts. However, the alleged problems continued, regarding both the length of proceedings and the failure of the Courts to reply to a number of applications made to them by the complainant
Assessment: The complainant did not assert any interaction with the Kosovo Specialist Chambers or the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office. Therefore, in accordance with Rule 28(2) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence (RPE), the complaint fell outside the Ombudsperson’s jurisdiction and thus the Ombudsperson lacked competence to examine the complaint.
Conclusion: The complaint was rejected pursuant to Rule 29(3)(b) of the RPE.
2022
Case-2022-03
Complaint: The complainant contacted the Ombudsperson’s Office without informing the Ombudsperson of the content of his complaint. Despite a number of reminders from the Ombudsperson, the complainant failed to engage further with the Ombudsperson.
Assessment: The complaint was incomplete and the complainant failed to provide any details of his complaint which would allow the Ombudsperson to assess it. Therefore, in accordance with Rule 29(3)(c), the complaint was rejected.
Conclusion: The complaint was rejected.
Case-2022-01
Complaint: The complainant submitted that the unjustified delays by the Basic Court of Priština/Prishtinë in handling two cases related to his properties had violated his right to a fair trial and to own property.
Assessment: The complainant did not assert any interaction with the Specialist Chambers and the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office. Therefore, in accordance with Rule 28(2) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the complaint fell outside the Ombudsperson’s jurisdiction and thus the Ombudsperson lacked competence to examine the complaint.
Conclusion: The complaint was rejected.
2021
Case-2021-01
Complaint: The complainant alleged that a Kosovo municipal agency, namely the Peć/Peja Municipality Legal Affairs Directorate, failed to enforce the final decision issued by the Kosovo Court of Appeals in Pristina confirming his right to purchase an apartment.
Assessment: The complainant did not assert any interaction with the Specialist Chambers and the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office. Therefore, in accordance with Rule 28(2) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the complaint fell outside the Ombudsperson’s jurisdiction and thus the Ombudsperson lacked competence to examine the complaint.
Conclusion: The complaint was rejected.
Case-2021-03
Complaint: The complainant submitted that the Court of Appeal in Pristina/Prishtinë failed to examine his cases.
Assessment: The complainant did not assert any interaction with the Specialist Chambers and the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office. Therefore, in accordance with Rule 28(2) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the complaint fell outside the Ombudsperson’s jurisdiction and thus the Ombudsperson lacked competence to examine the complaint.
Conclusion: The complaint was rejected.
Case-2021-04
Complaint: The complainant alleged that he faced issues with the public services and the court of Novo Brdo/Novobërdë, but never provided the Ombudsperson a complaint form with a detailed explanation of his complaint.
Assessment: The complainant did not assert any interaction with the Specialist Chambers and the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office. Therefore, in accordance with Rule 28(2) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the complaint fell outside the Ombudsperson’s jurisdiction and thus the Ombudsperson lacked competence to examine the complaint.
Conclusion: The complaint was rejected.
2020
Case-2020-01
Complaint: The complainant alleged that the delays in handling his lawsuit by the Basic Court of Pristina/Prishtinë had violated his human rights. His case was filed with the Basic Court of Pristina in 2013 but it had not been dealt with yet.
Assessment: The complainant did not assert any interaction with the Specialist Chambers and the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office. Therefore, in accordance with Rule 28(2) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the complaint fell outside the Ombudsperson’s jurisdiction and thus the Ombudsperson lacked competence to examine the complaint.
Conclusion: The complaint was rejected.
Case-2020-02
Complaint: The complainant claimed that Kosovo State institutions had violated her father’s fundamental rights. She alleged that the “Special Prosecution Office” and the “Special Court in Pristina/Prishtinë” had held his father in custody for 15 months without any evidence.
Assessment: The complainant did not assert any interaction with the Specialist Chambers and the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office. Therefore, in accordance with Rule 28(2) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the complaint fell outside the Ombudsperson’s jurisdiction and thus the Ombudsperson lacked competence to examine the complaint.
Conclusion: The complaint was rejected.
Case-2020-03
Complaint: The complainant submitted that the Kosovo Social and Welfare Services refused his request for benefits.
Assessment: The complainant did not assert any interaction with the Specialist Chambers and the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office. Therefore, in accordance with Rule 28(2) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the complaint fell outside the Ombudsperson’s jurisdiction and thus the Ombudsperson lacked competence to examine the complaint.
Conclusion: The complaint was rejected.
2019
Case-2019-01
Complaint: The complainant alleged that public institutions in Kosovo had violated his human rights. The complainant submitted that the public institutions, though not specifically named in his complaint, abused their authority through the illegal sale and registration of his late father’s property.
Assessment: The complainant did not assert any interaction with the Specialist Chambers and the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office. Therefore, in accordance with Rule 28(2) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the complaint fell outside the Ombudsperson’s jurisdiction and thus the Ombudsperson lacked competence to examine the complaint.
Conclusion: The complaint was rejected.
Case-2019-02
Complaint: The complainant alleged that he had been waiting ten years for a ruling in Kosovar courts. His case had been referred to the Court of Appeals in Pristina since April 2017.
Assessment: The complainant did not assert any interaction with the Specialist Chambers and the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office. Therefore, in accordance with Rule 28(2) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the complaint fell outside the Ombudsperson’s jurisdiction and thus the Ombudsperson lacked competence to examine the complaint.
Conclusion: The complaint was rejected.
2018
Case-2018-01
Complaint: The complainant submitted a complaint against the KSC Office of the Head of Division of Administration. As a staff member of the KSC, the complainant raised objections to an administrative decision on her part time employment.
Assessment: Other remedies were available and were not exhausted. Therefore, in accordance with Rule 29(3)(d) the Ombudsperson lacked competence to examine the complaint,
Conclusion: The complaint was rejected.
Case-2018-02
Complaint: The complainant alleged that the Kosovo State institutions have failed to take appropriate legal measures to have his property returned to his family after it was usurped. The complainant asserted that EULEX and UNMIK failed to take any action on foot of a complaint made by him and neither initiated any investigation into the complaint.
Assessment: The complainant did not assert any interaction with the Specialist Chambers and the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office. Therefore, in accordance with Rule 28(2) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the complaint fell outside the Ombudsperson’s jurisdiction and thus Ombudsperson lacked competence to examine the complaint,
Conclusion: The complaint was rejected.
Case-2018-04
Complaint: The complainant submitted that his request for a pension, on the basis of limited capacity for work, had been rejected by the Kosovo State authorities. The complainant alleged that despite numerous contacts with several institutions, including a “medical board”, the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare and its Pension Administration Department, his requests had been either rejected or ignored. The complainant was seeking a reconsideration of the decision rejecting his claim.
Assessment: The complainant did not assert any interaction with the Specialist Chambers and the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office. Therefore, in accordance with Rule 28(2) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the complaint fell outside the Ombudsperson’s jurisdiction and thus the Ombudsperson lacked competence to examine the complaint,
Conclusion: The complaint was rejected.