Constitutional Court

The Applicant submitted Referral based on Article 113.of the Constitution, alleging that the District Court in Prishtina, by rejecting the request for repetition of procedure, violated his constitutional rights, guaranteed by Article 21 [General Principles], Article 31 [Right to Fair and Impartial Trial], Article 32 [Right to Legal Remedies], Article 54 [Right to Judicial Protection] and as well Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

In this case, the Court referred to Article 48, which establishes that, “the claimant should accurately clarify what rights and freedoms he/she claims to have been violated”. The Court also referred to the Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure, which establishes that, “the Court shall reject a Referral as being manifestly ill-founded when it is satisfied that: b) the presented facts do not in any way justify the allegation of a violation of the constitutional rights or d) the Applicant does not sufficiently substantiate his claim.”

The Court concluded the Applicant has not substantiated his claims on constitutional grounds, showing why and how the District Court committed a violation of his rights guaranteed by the Constitution and European Convention, and he did not provide evidence that his rights and freedoms have been violated by the District Court. So, the Constitutional Court cannot find why and how the relevant proceedings in the District Court were in any way unfair or tainted by arbitrariness and for this case the Court mentioned the case Shub v. Lithuania, ECHR Decision on Admissibility of Application No. 17064/06 of 30 June 2009.

As a conclusion, the Court finds that the Referral did not fulfill the requirements of Article 48 of the Law and Rule 36.2 b) and d) of the Rules of Procedure, as such it was considered manifestly ill-founded.