Constitutional reject investor demand for fatal elevator case in Pristina

According to the Constitutional decision, the case documents indicate that on January 3, 2013, S.Q., who worked as a milk distributor, lost his life in an elevator accident in a residential building in Pristina. When he opened the elevator door, the cabin was not on the property floor, and he fell into the basement of the object.

The victim's wife and five children indicted the object's investors (Artan and Arim Gjakova), seeking compensation for material and non-matial damage.

According to the Constitutional decision, the subject's paperwork results in the fact that the victim's family claimed that the elevator was not maintained as required by law, there was no certificate of use from the relevant institutions, as well as investors had demanded the removal of automatic internal elevator doors, despite warnings that it could endanger people's lives.

It is said that on October 28, 2020, the Constitutional Court partially approved the SQ family indictment and forced investors to pay compensation for the victim's family. The victim's wife was earmarked 6 thousand euros for non-mamaterial damage, while each of the five children of 5,000 euros. The court also recognised 485 euros for burial expenses -- 1,000 and 240 euros for the expenses of the comfort ceremony and 150 euros for carrying the corpse from the Law Medicine Institute to home. In all, the family was recognised at 32 thousand and 875 euros in compensation.

The court estimated that investors bore responsibility because the elevator had been put into place without technical documentation and without observing the legal safety regulations, reports the “Justice Trust”.

Investors complained, claiming they no longer had responsibility for the elevator after the maintenance contract had expired and that the responsibility had been passed on to the residents of the facility. They also pointed out that there were warning signs in the elevator and that the accident had occurred because of a technical defect.

According to the Constitutional ruling, on June 7, 2024, the Court of Appeals rejected the complaint and left the Constitutional Court ruling in power. According to her, investors bore responsibility for the changes made in the elevator and for its failure to maintain it.

Later, investors presented the revision to the Supreme Court, claiming that only the elevator's internal door had been removed and that they no longer had responsibility for maintenance after the contract expired.

On April 14, 2025, the Supreme Court rejected the revision and confirmed previous decisions. The court argued that investors did not have technical documentation for the elevator situation and that the opening of the door even when the cabin was not on the floor showed that the elevator system had serious functional problems.

Artan and Arim Gjakova claimed that with the decisions of fair courts, constitutional rights, including the right to fair judgment, justice and effective protection, guaranteed with the Constitution of Kosovo and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

They claimed that the courts had failed to reason on the decisions and had failed to address their main arguments, especially with the contracts of 2008 and 2010, through which, according to them, the responsibility for maintenance of the elevator had been passed on to residents, the statements of witnesses who had said there was no maintenance contract, and that the removal of internal doors was no risk, the technical expertise that linked the accident to a defect and not to their actions, the claim that they had no longer legal or property responsibility for the elevator since 2010, as well as the difference between <x> and the <1>>>x> and the internal door being removed <2>, according to their own courts, the <x>

Predators also claimed that courts had been treated equally, since the housing ownership law stipulates that maintaining joint parts of the building, including the elevator, is the responsibility of the residents' association and building administrator, not individual investors.

According to them, the courts had implemented the law arbitraryly, charging only them with responsibility for the accident, while not offering effective protection of their rights and had not properly considered the evidence and claims presented during the trial process.

The Constitutional Court estimated that the forgers had had access to evidence during the court proceedings, but their claims had not resulted in success. She found that there was no violation of the right to judge and that claims of discrimination and uneven treatment were not supported by sufficient evidence.

Eventually, on April 23, 2026, Kosovo's Constitutional Court declared the request unacceptable and put court decisions in effect. /Betimitor Justice/