Constitutional Court

KI158/18, Request for constitutional review of Judgment Pml. No. 141/2018 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kosovo of 2 July 2018 and Decision P. No. 571/13 of the Basic Court in Prishtina of 2 February 2018

KI158/18, Ajet Ajeti

Resolution on Inadmissibility of 12 April 2019

Keywords: non-exhaustion of legal remedies, manifestly ill-founded, actio popularis

A pre-trial detention measure ordered by the Basic Court in Prishtina was applied to the Applicant – in order to ensure his presence to a court hearing. The Applicant stayed 8 days in detention on remand in total, and related to this, he alleged that his freedom of movement and security was restricted by an unlawful decision rendered by the regular courts and by “failing to comply with the procedure prescribed by law”.

The subject matter was the constitutional review of the two decisions he challenged and which, in his opinion, were taken in violation of his rights and freedoms guaranteed by Article 3 [Equality Before the Law], Article 22 [Direct Applicability of International Agreements and Instruments], Article 24 [Equality Before the Law], paragraph 1 of Article 29 [Right to Liberty and Security], paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of Article 31 [Right to Fair and Impartial Trial] and paragraph 1 of Article 55 [Limitations on Fundamental Rights and Freedoms] of the Constitution and item (b) of paragraph 1 of Article 5 of the ECHR.

The Court found that, as regards the challenging of the Decision [P. No. 571/13] of the Basic Court of 2 February 2018, the Applicant did not exhaust all legal remedies provided by law and consequently his Referral for that part was declared inadmissible based on Article 113.7 of the Constitution, Article 47 of the Law and Rule 39 (1) (b) of the Rules of Procedure.

Regarding the challenging of the Decision [Pml. No. 141/2018] of the Supreme Court of 2 July 2018, the Court found that the Applicant did not prove how this decision violates his rights and freedoms guaranteed by Articles 29 and 31 of the Constitution and Articles 5 and 6 of the ECHR and for that part the Referral was declared inadmissible based on Article 48 of the Law and Rule 39 (2) of the Rules of Procedure.

Finally, as to the general allegations that his case, in addition to the Applicant’s interests, is of interest to all defendants and the accused in Kosovo, the Court found that the Applicant is not an authorized party to raise such allegations that are of character actio popularis.