:
0,16%
-1,85%
PRINT
Background note on the cases “Drenusha vs. Municipality of Viti”
EULEX deeply deplores the reported statements by municipal officials of the Municipality of Vitina.
14. February 2010. | 09:50 
09:55
Source: EMportal
There are two pending cases in Viti/Vitina with the same parties: the Hunting Club Association “Drenusha” and the Municipality of Viti/Vitina.
The Deputy Head of EULEX Kosovo, Mr. Roy Reeve, made the following statement in regards to the twofold process of execution and claim for ownership connected to the “Drenusha versus Municipality of Viti/Vitina” case:
“EULEX deeply deplores the reported statements by municipal officials of the Municipality of Viti/Vitina. This is not the first time that the Viti/Vitina authorities have shown their belief that they are somehow above the Rule of Law. This position of not respecting decisions by an independent judiciary is unacceptable in any democratic society. EULEX will again raise the issue with the Government of Kosovo and seek their support”
There are two pending cases in Viti/Vitina with the same parties: the Hunting Club Association “Drenusha” and the Municipality of Viti/Vitina.
The first of the cases stems from the autumn 2008 after the Municipality of Viti/Vitina occupied the premises which were in use of “Drenusha”.
On 19 May 2009, after the request by the Presidents of the District Court Gjilan/Gnjilane and the Municipal Court of Viti/Vitina, EULEX took over the case, which was already in the execution phase, meaning that the decision had been already made by the local Judges.
The second case has been raised by the Municipality of Viti/Vitina to establish their ownership of the parcel and building.
So we point out that the first case is about the possession of the building and the parcel, meaning a factual situation, as contrary to the second case which has been raised to determine the ownership of the parcel and the building, meaning a right established by the law.
1. EXECUTION CASE
Two decisions, first and second instance, ruled by local judges established that the Municipality of Viti/Vitina was obliged to vacate the premises of the Hunting club Association “Drenusha” and consequently return to them the possessions of the land in object including the building. The merit of these cases, at both levels, has been analyzed and decided by local judges. After all possible legal remedies, the decision turned finally definitive. Considering the difficulties for the enforcement of these decisions, EULEX took the execution case in order to guarantee that the decisions of local judges would have been executed in accordance with the rule of law.
The EULEX judge assigned to this execution case had as the only task to execute the decisions already taken by the local colleagues, without any analysis of the merit of the case. To accomplish his task the EULEX judge issued an order to release the building in object and to do not impede in further usage.
2. CLAIM FOR THE OWNERSHIP
On 13th of March 2009 the Municipality of Viti/Vitina submitted a claim in the Municipal Court of Viti/Vitina in order to confirm the property on the parcel 3259 against the Hunting club Association “Drenusha” as the only legal way admissible in order to demolish the possession already declared on the other case (because property is stronger than possession, in simple words).
EULEX has been requested to take over the case and after a hearing, on the 8th September 2009, where the parties had the opportunity to express their opinion on whether or nor was ground for EULEX judges to take the case and, not only didn’t object but they expressed their agreement for EULEX to take over the case, the judge Vitor Hugo Pardal has been appointed as Presiding judge for the case.
Both parties agreed that the Municipality of Viti/Vitina transmitted the parcel to Hunting club Association “Drenusha”. The difference between parties is based on what precise terms this transfer happened.
Municipality of Viti/Vitina consider this transfer happened for the right of use, on the contrary Hunting club Association “Drenusha” consider that this transfer happened for the right of ownership.
The Court hereby invited ex officio both parties to join as evidence the Official Gazette where, according to the parties, the parcel was once transmitted.
The Court will decide according to the evidences submitted by the parties and strictly according to the applicable law.
Comments (0)
Enter text: