Constitutional Court

The Applicant submitted the Referral based on Article 113•7 of the Constitution, alleging that by the District Court Judgment and judgments of the Supreme Court were violated his constitutional rights guaranteed by Article 21 [General principles], Article 22 [Direct Applicability of International Agreements and Instruments], Article 24 [Equality Before the Law], Article 27 [Prohibition of Torture, Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment], Article 29 [Right to Liberty and Security], Article 31 [Right to Fair and Impartial Trial], Article 32 [Right to Legal Remedies], and Article 33 [The Principle of Legality and Proportionality in Criminal Cases] of the Constitution.

The Court had concluded that the Applicant has failed to prove that alleged violations of the constitutional rights, mentioned in the Referral, constitute incontestable elements of the violation of his rights. So, one of the admissibility requirements is if the Referral is not manifestly ill-founded so that the Court can go into its merits. The Court further concluded that it is not the task of the Constitutional Court to assess the legality and accuracy of decisions issued by competent court institutions, unless there is convincing evidence that such decisions have been rendered in an unfair and unclear manner.

The Court concluded that the Applicant did not provide evidence that the District Court in Prishtina and the Supreme Court have incorrectly assessed and analyzed the evidence submitted by the Applicant. In fact, the Applicant has failed to reason his Referral that regular courts have committed a violation of Articles 21, 22, 24, 27, 29, 31 and 32 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo and European Convention on Human Rights.

The Court cited the Case No. KI 13/09, Sevdail Avdyli, against Supreme Court Judgment A. No. 533/2006 of 11 September 2006, and Supreme Court Judgment A. No. 533/2006 of 2 December 2006, 17 June 2010. As a conclusion, the Court considered that the Referral has not met the formal admissibility requirements, as required by Article 46 of the Law and Rule 36.2 (b) and (d) of the Rules of Procedure because the Applicant has failed to prove that alleged violations constitute sufficient grounds in order for the Court to deal with the merits of the case.