Constitutional Court

The Applicant filed a Referral pursuant to Article 113.7 of the Constitution, contending that the Assembly’s appointment of two persons to the Board of the Telecommunications Regulatory Authority violated the quorum requirement of Article 80.1 of the Constitution. He also asserted that the Albanian, English and Serbian versions of Article 80 were inconsistent and therefore unconstitutionally ambiguous, as was Rule 31 of the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly, therefore rendering the appointments to the Board invalid, The Court held that the Referral was inadmissible pursuant to Article 49 of the Law on the Constitutional Court because the Referral had been submitted more than four months after the alleged violation, and because the Applicant failed substantiate a claim that his individual rights and freedoms under the Constitution were violated, citing Sadik Sheme Bislimi, The Court also held that the Applicant’s contention about the ambiguity of Article 31 was inadmissible because it lacks authority to resolve abstract allegations of Constitutional violations raised as an actio popularis by unaffected individuals, citing Dudgeon v. the United Kingdom