Constitutional Court

The Applicants submitted their Referrals separately, Given that the subject matter and their challenged legal act was the same in all their Referrals, with the decision of the President and pursuant to Rules of Procedure, these Referrals were joined into one, The Applicants filed their Referrals based on Article 113,7 of the Constitution of Kosovo, claiming that the Municipality Court Judgment C, 90/03 of 09,01,2008 and the District Court Judgment AC Nr, 313/2010 of 09,11,2011 violate their rights as guaranteed by Article 3 [Equality Before the Law]; Article 7 [Values]; Article 16 [Supremacy of the Constitution]; Article 21 [General Principles]; Article 22 [Direct Applicability of International Agreements and Instruments]; Article 23 [Human Dignity]; Article 24 [Equality Before the Law]; Article 25 [Right to Life]; Article 26 [Right to Personal Integrity]; Article 27 [Prohibition of Torture, Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment]; Article 31 [Right to Fair and Impartial Trial]; Article 41 [Right of Access to Public Documents]; Article 46 [Protection of Property] and Article 54 [Judicial Protection of Rights] in conjunction with Article 102 [General Principles of the Judicial System] of the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo (hereinafter: the “Constitution”) and their rights guaranteed by Article 1 [Obligations to respect human rights]; Article 2 [Right to life]; Article 3 [Prohibition of torture]; Article 6,1 [Right to a fair trial]; Article 8 [Right to respect for private and family life]; Article 10 [Freedom of Expression]; Article 13 [Right to an effective remedy]; Article 14 [Prohibition of discrimination] of the European Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter: the “ECHR”) and Article 1 of Protocol No, 1 to the ECHR; Article 2, Article 3 and Article 4 of Protocol No, 7 to the ECHR in conjunction with Article 1 of Protocol No, 12 to the ECHR, The Court concluded that it is not its task to deal with errors of fact or law (legality) allegedly committed by the regular courts, unless and in so far as they may have infringed rights and freedoms protected by Constitution (constitutionality), The Court is not to act as a court of fourth instance, when considering the decisions taken by regular courts, Therefore, the Applicants failed to show why and how the regular courts violated their rights as guaranteed by the Constitution, and thus, the Court decided that the Referral is inadmissible because it is manifestly ill-founded