Constitutional Court

KI198/18, Applicant: Hasan Shala, Request for constitutional review of Judgment Rev. No. 145/2018 of the Supreme Court of 6 September 2018 

KI198/18, Resolution on Inadmissibility, published on 12 April 2019

Keywords: individual referral,

The Court notes that the Applicant did not state in the referral what constitutional rights and freedoms were violated by the judgments of the regular courts, nor did he state or explain how or in what manner the regular courts could violate some of his constitutional rights and freedoms, nor whether a possible violation may have occurred in the proceeding of determination of factual situation, the application of substantive law, or failure to comply with some of the guarantees provided for by the Constitution.

In the present case, the Court found that the Supreme Court in the reasoning of the challenged judgment, as the final decision in the present proceedings, provided detailed, clear and accurate reasons for its decision as to why the Applicant cannot exercise the right to compensation in the form he wishes, and, therefore, it cannot be concluded that the application of the relevant legal provisions in any part of the proceeding was arbitrary.

Bearing in mind the above, the consistent case law of the ECtHR and of the Constitutional Court, as well as the views set out in this decision, the Court finds that there is nothing to indicate that the Applicant’s allegations raise in any way the constitutional issues, namely nothing that indicates that the Applicant has “a reasoned referral” in the present case.

In the circumstances of this case, the Applicant’s Referral is in accordance with the requirements established in paragraphs 1 and 7 of Article 113 of the Constitution and Articles 47 and 49 of the Law. However, the Applicant’s Referral does not meet the admissibility requirements as foreseen by Article 48 of the Law and item (d) of paragraph (1) of Rule 39 of the Rules of Procedure.