Constitutional Court

KI50/20, Applicant: Abdullah Bajra, Constitutional review of Judgment Pml.no.366/ 2019 of the Supreme Court, of 10 January 2020

KI50/20, resolution on inadmissibility, of 20 January 2021, published on 15 February 2021

Keywords: individual referral, criminal proceedings, request for interim measures, rights of the accused, right to a fair trial, manifestly ill-founded referral, inadmissible referral

The Applicant challenged before the Constitutional Court the constitutionality of Judgment Pml.no.366/2019 of the Supreme Court, of 10 January 2020, by alleging a violation of his rights guaranteed by Articles 30[Rights of the Accused] and 31 [Right to Fair and Impartial Trial] of the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo and Article 6 [Right to a fair trial] of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Court, after having analysed the Applicant’s allegations, considered that the Applicant had built his case on the basis of legality and not on the basis of constitutionality. In this case, the Court reiterated that as a general rule, allegations of erroneous interpretation of the law allegedly made by the regular courts relate to the scope of legality and as such do not fall within the jurisdiction of the Court, and therefore, in principle, they cannot be considered by the Court  (see the cases of Court: no. KI06/17, Applicant LG and five others, Resolution on Inadmissibility, of 25 October 2016, paragraph 36; KI122/16, Applicant Riza Dembogaj, Judgment of 30 May 2018, paragraph 56, and the case of Court KI154/17 and 05/18, Applicants, Basri Deva, Aferdita Deva and the Limited Liability Company “Barbas”, Resolution on Inadmissibility of 28 August 2019, paragraph 60).

The Court further found that the regular courts have complied with the requirements of Article 6 of the ECHR, which include the rights of the accused, giving of the opportunity to the Applicant to present his objections regarding the evidence and charges brought against him, at any stage of the conduction of proceedings. Moreover, all the arguments, that were relevant to the resolution of his case, viewed objectively, have been duly heard and examined by the courts; that the factual and legal reasons against the challenged decisions were examined and reasoned in detail and that the proceedings, viewed in their entirety, were not unfair.

In sum, the Court, having relied on the standards set in its case law in similar cases and on the case law of the ECtHR, found that the Applicant has failed to sufficiently prove and substantiate his allegation for a violation of his fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by the aforementioned articles of the Constitution. Thus, the Applicant’s Referral was declared manifestly ill-founded on constitutional basis, and consequently  inadmissible in accordance with Rule 39(2) of the Rules of Procedure.