Constitutional Court

KI112/17, Applicant: Deno Denović, Constitutional review of Judgment ARJ. No. 7/2017 of the Supreme Court of Kosovo, of 16 May 2017.

 KI112/17, Resolution on Inadmissibility of 26 September 2018, published on 22.10.2018

Keywords: Individual referral, hearing, administrative procedure, manifestly ill-founded referral

The Regional Directorate of Kosovo Customs in Mitrovica, by Decision [08.05.2/394], found the Applicant responsible for the customs offense and sentenced him with a fine, as he was caught by the Kosovo Police while transporting 4 (four) oil cans, with the justification that the invoice by which the Applicant justified the goods, was not confirmed to be valid. Following the appeal of the Applicant, Kosovo Customs by Decision [07.03/497] rejected as ungrounded the request for review of the Decision of the Regional Directorate and upheld the Decision of the Regional Directorate.

The Applicant filed a claim with the Basic Court in Prishtina – Department for Administrative Matters against Kosovo Customs, requesting the annulment of Decision [07.03/497] or remanding his case for reconsideration to Kosovo Customs. The Basic Court, by Judgment [A. No. 1247/14], rejected the Applicant’s claim as ungrounded. The Judgment of the Basic Court was also upheld by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.

The Applicant alleges before the Constitutional Court violation of his rights to fair and impartial trial under Article 31 of the Constitution through two following arguments: a) rejection of the request for holding a hearing by the Kosovo Customs Review  Division ; and b) that the decisions of Kosovo Customs and the judgments of the regular courts are arbitrary because they consider that the invoice based on which he reasoned the disputed goods is not valid and that none of the administrative and judicial instances confirmed  the elements of the offense for which he was found responsible and sentenced.

The Court notes that the Applicant’s arguments for violation of Article 31 of the Constitution as a result of the non-holding of a hearing at the level of administrative bodies, do not sufficiently substantiate his allegation of constitutional violation because the relevant decisions of the administrative bodies became subject to subsequent control by a “judicial authority having full jurisdiction” with the power to annul such decisions both in matters of fact and law. As regards his allegations against judicial bodies, the Court considered that the Applicant did not prove that the proceedings before the Supreme Court were unfair or arbitrary or that his fundamental rights and freedoms protected by the Constitution were violated as a result of erroneous interpretation of law and assessment of evidence and facts in his case.

Therefore, in accordance with Article 113.7 of the Constitution, Article 48 of the Law and Rule 39 (2) of the Rules of Procedure, the Referral was manifestly ill-founded on constitutional basis and was to be declared inadmissible.