Constitutional Court

The Applicant claimed that the public authorities violated his rights guaranteed by Article 31 [Right to Fair and Impartial Trial] of the Constitution, in conjunction with Article 6,1 of the ECHR and Article 24 [Equality before the Law] of the Constitution, in conjunction with Article 14 of the ECHR, due to the adjudication of the case by the Supreme Court in contradiction with its case law, As to the Applicant’s allegation for violation of Article 24 [Equality before the Law] of the Constitution, in conjunction with Article 14 of ECHR, the Court considered that the Applicant did not prove by any evidence that the Supreme Court has decided in a partial or unlawful manner or that it has not sufficiently reasoned its judgment, In this case, the Court stressed that it is not sufficient that the Applicant substantiates his allegation for partiality, by supporting his allegation in other cases for which the court has decided individually based on the light of the case, An allegation for violation of constitutional rights must be convincingly justified and referred based on the constitutional grounds, in order that the appeal has success to the benefit of the claiming party, As to the Applicant’s allegation for violation of the right to fair and impartial trial, the Court noted that the Applicant failed to substantiate by evidence his allegation for violation of the right to fair and impartial trial, that is guaranteed by Article 31 of the Constitution and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, The Court further reasoned that the allegations for violation of a constitutional right, in their essence, should contain indisputable elements of violation of fundamental rights, guaranteed by the Constitution and international instruments, in order that the Court goes into its merits, Finally, the Court found that the Applicant’s Referral does not meet the admissibility requirements, either on the ground of admissibility, or on the merits of the Referral, because the Referral is manifestly ill-founded, and in compliance with Rule 36 (2) b) and d) of the Rules of Procedure, it is declared inadmissible