Constitutional Court

KI113/19 Applicant: Islam Qerimi, Request for interpretation of Law No. 06/L-010 on Notary

KI113/19 Resolution on Inadmissibility of 9 July 2020, published on 3 August 2020

Keywords: Individual referral, inadmissible referral, unauthorized party, actio popularis

The Applicant is Islam Qerimi, who requests the interpretation of Law No. 06/L-010 on Notary.

The Applicant alleges that Article 3 [Notary authorizations and notary deeds], of the Law on Notary, violates his rights guaranteed by Article 3 [Equality Before the Law] of the Constitution. In this regard, the Applicant requested the Court to interpret the Law on Notary, answering some specific questions as follows:(i) “Can a Legal Consultation Office registered with the KBRA or a Law Office registered with the Chamber of Advocates draft real estate contracts, and what types of contracts can be drafted”?; (ii) Can it represent its client in an Administrative Body, and can it represent based on the Authorization given by the Client, to represent in a civil, administrative, economic dispute, before the competent court?; (iii) Authorization given by the client for the Legal Office “Law Tech”, is it valid even without being certified by a notary;(iv) What activity can a Legal Office Licensed by the Ministry of Trade and Industry exercise?”

Pursuant to the relevant constitutional provisions, which serve as the basis for the assessment of this Referral, the Court refers to Article 113 [Jurisdiction and Authorized Parties] of the Constitution, which determines who are the authorized parties that are entitled to request constitutional review of laws. In this regard, the Court notes that, according to Article 113 of the Constitution and the relevant provisions of the Law and the Rules of Procedure, individuals are not authorized to submit to the Constitutional Court the referrals that are of actio popularis nature. The only way natural or legal persons can challenge the constitutionality of a law before the Constitutional Court through Article 113.7 of the Constitution and Articles 47 and 49 of the Law is if they prove that their referral is not of an “actio popularis” nature – but that they have been directly or indirectly affected by a “law” in the absence of any act, decision or measure implementing that law. In the circumstances of the present case, as will be explained below, this is not the case.

Thus, according to the case law of this Court, the Constitution does not provide for a possibility that individuals can complain in abstracto in the Constitutional Court for an unconstitutionality of a Law. The individuals may file constitutional referral regarding actions or failure to act by public authorities only within the scope provided by Articles 113.1 and 113.7 of the Constitution, which requires the Applicants to show that they are: (1) authorized parties, (2) directly affected by a concrete act or failure to act by public authorities, and (3) that they have exhausted all legal remedies provided by law (See the case of the Constitutional Court KI102/17 Applicant Meleq Ymeri, cited above, paragraph 20).

The Court emphasized that it cannot answer the questions and doubts of the applicability of the Law on Notary, which the Applicant has submitted, in the abstract manner, through his Referral.

Therefore, the Applicant’s Referral was declared inadmissible because it was not submitted by an authorized party, as established in paragraphs 1 and 7 of Article 113 of the Constitution, Article 47 of the Law and Rule 39 (1) (a) of the Rules of Procedure.