Constitutional Court

The Referral is based on the Article 113.7 of the Constitution, Articles 46, 47, 48 and 49 of the Law no. 03/L-121 on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Kosovo (hereinafter: Law), and Rule 56 (2) of Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Kosovo (hereinafter: Rules of Procedure), On 8 June 2011, the Applicant filed the referral with the Constitutional Court of Kosovo, The President of the Court, on 17 August 2011, appointed Judge Ivan Čukalović as Judge Rapporteur, and the Review Panel composed of: Robert Carolan (Presiding), Almiro Rodrigues and Iliriana Islami. On 2 July 2012, the President appointed Judge Snezhana Botusharova instead of Judge Iliriana Islami, By Judgment of the District Court in Prizren P.no.17/2007 of 9 July 2007, the applicant was found guilty of two criminal offences, namely grave cases of Theft in the Nature of Robbery or Robbery, as per Article 256.1 of the Provisional Criminal Code of Kosovo (PCCK). Subsequently, the applicant was sentenced to a unique sentence of imprisonment of twelve (12) years, Discontented with the outcome, the Applicant filed a complaint with the Supreme Court, On 27 February 2008, the Supreme Court rendered judgment Ap.no. 424/2007, thereby rejecting as ungrounded the applicant’s complaint, Further, on 18 February 2011, the applicant filed a request for protection of legality with the Supreme Court of Kosovo, The Supreme Court of Kosovo, on 22 February 2011, rendered Judgment Pkl. no. 25/2011, thereby rejecting as ungrounded the request for protection of legality against final judgment of the District Court in Prizren, Kp.no. 255/2010, of 2 November 2010, Following review of procedure in its entirety, the Court could not establish any fact that the relevant proceedings were in any way unlawful or arbitrary (see mutatis mutandis, Shub v. Lithuania, Decision of the ECHR on admissibility of referral no. 17064/06, of 30 June 2009.), Subsequently, this Referral failed to meet the requirements for admissibility. The applicant could not substantiate the allegations that the judgment challenged had violated the applicant’s constitutional rights and freedoms, Therefore, in compliance with Article 113.7 of the Constitution, Articles 48 and 56 of the Law, and Rule 36 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court, the Constitutional Court unanimously decided to find the referral inadmissible