Constitutional Court

KI237/19 and KI238/19, Applicant: Ekzon Keka and Muhamet Thaçi; Constitutional review of Judgment Pn. II. 8/2019 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kosovo, of 17 October 2019

KI237/19 and KI238/19, Resolution on Inadmissibility of 25 November 2020, published on 24 December 2020

Keywords: individual referral, criminal procedure, interim measure, right to a fair trial, manifestly ill-founded referral, inadmissible referral

The Applicants before the Court challenged the constitutionality of Judgment Pn. II. 8/2019 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kosovo, of 17 October 2019, in conjunction with Decision Pml. No. 259/2018 of the Supreme Court, of 5 November 2018 and Judgment PA1. No. 748/2018 of the Court of Appeals of 13 August 2018, alleging a violation of Article 31 [Right to Fair and Impartial Trial] of the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo, in conjunction with Article 6 (Right to a fair trial) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

The Court, after analyzing the allegations of the Applicants, in accordance with Rule 35, Sub-Rule (5) of the Rules of Procedure, recalled that it does not examine the repeated allegations of the Applicants which were the subject of review by the Court. Therefore, the Court did not assess the constitutionality of Judgment PA1. no. 748/2018 of the Court of Appeals of 13 August 2018 and the constitutionality of Decision Pml. No. 259/2018 of the Supreme Court of 5 November 2018, because the latter were subject to review by the Court in the joint cases KI19/19 and KI20/19, on which it has decided by the Resolution on Inadmissibility, of 29 July 2019. Whereas, regarding the constitutional review of Judgment Pn. II. 8/2019 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kosovo, of 17 October 2019, the Court noted that the Applicants in general, alleged that Judgment PN. II. 8/2019 of the Supreme Court, violated their rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution. However, the Applicants did not further explain how and why there has been e violation of their constitutional rights by Judgment. PN. II. 8/2019, of the Supreme Court, of 17 October 2019. Therefore, their Referrals in this part were declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded, in accordance with Rule 39 (2) of the Rules of Procedure.

The Court, in accordance with Article 27 (1) of the Law and Rule 57 (4) (a) of the Rules of Procedure, also rejected the Applicants’ request for interim measure because it could no longer be the subject of a review, as their Referrals were declared inadmissible, on constitutional basis.