Constitutional Court

The Applicant filed a Referral pursuant to Article 113.7 of the Constitution, asserting that his Constitutional right to a fair and impartial trial under Article 31 of the Constitution was infringed by a judgment of the Supreme Court, which affirmed a decision of the Independent Review Board (IRB) rejecting the Applicant’s defense against a tax assessment imposed by the Tax Administration of Kosovo (TAK), The Court held that the Referral was admissible because: the Applicant is a party authorized to file a Referral pursuant to Article 113.7; he met the prerequisite of exhausting all legal remedies pursuant to Article 113.7 and Article 47.2 of the Law on the Constitutional Court; he filed the Referral within the legal deadline; he specified the rights and freedoms that were violated, as well as the related actions by public authorities; and, he submitted information and documents supporting his contentions, On the merits of the Referral, the Court held that there was no violation of either the Applicant’s right to a fair hearing and or to his right to a fair and impartial trial under either Article 31 or Article 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The Court noted that its authority is limited to disposing of allegations of Constitutional violations, adding that it is bound by the decision of the Supreme Court unless a fundamental right has been infringed. It found that the IRB’s ruling was based upon the Board’s assessment of the Applicant’s credibility and the evidence presented, which the Supreme Court confirmed. The Court also noted that its obligation is to resolve allegations of Constitutional violations by determining whether the proceedings, taken as a whole, were fair and compliant with specific Constitutional safeguards. It added that an Applicant’s mere dissatisfaction with the outcome of his case is an insufficient basis for an Article 31 violation, citing Demë Kurbogaj and Besnik Kurbogaj, The Case of X (17 June 2010), and Mezoture Tiszazugi Tarsulat v. Hungary. The Court held that there was no support for a claim that the Supreme Court assessed the Applicant’s evidence in an unfair or inaccurate matter, For the reasons stated, the Court issued a Judgment overruling the Applicant’s objection to the Supreme Court’s decision and reflecting its holding that there was no violation of the Applicant’s right to a fair and impartial trial