Constitutional Court

The Applicants consider that Article 2 of the Amended Law on Budget, which reads as follows “All public money collected from goods imported by businesses registered in North Mitrovica, Zubin Potok, Leposaviq or Zvecan, with a destination for consumption in these municipalities upon entering into Kosovo through Jarinje (gate I) or Brnjak (gate 31) are required to be sent to the Kosovo Fund and separately identified and accounted for in KFMIS, are hereby appropriated to the Development Trust Fund that is to be established by the EUSR in a commercial bank,”, violates the Constitution,
They allege that the abovementioned Article violates Article 119,4 [General Principles] of the Constitution, reading: “The Republic of Kosovo promotes the welfare of all of its citizens by fostering sustainable economic development,”, In the Applicants’ view, “[…]” the term promotes welfare of all of its citizens and expresses the spirit of equality and non-discrimination of all citizens before the law and the commitment of the state authorities without distinction to any affiliation of citizens, So, the promotion of the welfare of every citizen expresses the equal commitment, without any distinction, by the state authorities, in the sense of economic relations, which includes all economic aspects starting from macro-economic factors until the creation of micro-economic conditions,”, The Applicants allege also that Article 2 of the Amended Law on Budget violates Article 120,1 [Public Finances] of the Constitution, Article 120,1 reads: “Public expenditure and the collection of public revenue shall be based on the principles of accountability, effectiveness, efficiency and transparency,”, As to the Applicants’ claim that the contested Law infringes the provisions of Law No, 03/L-048 on Public Financial Management, the Court reiterates its view that, by virtue of Article 112 [General Principles] of the Constitution, it is only competent to review the constitutionality of a contested law, but not its legality, It follows that this part of the Referral is outside the jurisdiction of the Court under Article 112 of the Constitution and is, therefore, incompatible ratione materiae with the Constitution, As to the Applicants’ allegations that the contested Law infringes paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 3 [Equality before the Law], paragraph 4 of Article 19 [On General Principles] and paragraph 1 of Article 120 [Public Finances] of the Constitution, the Court refers to paragraph 1,3 of Article 42 [Accuracy of the Referral] of the Law on the Constitutional Court, providing that the following information shall, inter alia, be submitted: “presentation of evidence that supports the contest,” In the present case, the Court notes that the Applicants have only argued in the abstract the alleged unconstitutionality of the contested Law, but have not substantiated in a convincing manner that the contested Law would violate each of the Articles of the Constitution invoked by them and have not presented evidence in support of their allegations, As to the alleged violation of Article 120 of the Constitution, providing that: “Public expenditure and the collection of public revenue shall be based on the principles of accountability, effectiveness, efficiency and accountability”, the Applicants stated what accountability in this case should include and how a state authority could report on its actions without the existence of the obligation to act in a specific way, Regarding this complaint, the Court is of the opinion that the Applicants have neither built a case on a violation of the rights invoked by them, nor have they submitted prima facie evidence on such violations (see, Vanek v, Slovak Republic, Application no, 53363/99, ECtHR Decision on Admissibility of 31 May 2005, and Case KI 70/11, Applicants Faik Hima, Magbule Hima, Bestar Hima, Resolution on Inadmissibility of 13 December 2011), It follows that this part of the Referral is manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Rule 36,1(c) of the Rules of Procedure which provides that: “The Court may only deal with Referrals if: c) the Referral is not manifestly ill-founded,” Taking the Applicants’ complaints as a whole, the Court concludes that the Referral must be rejected as manifestly ill-founded, pursuant to Rule 36,1(C) of the Rules of Procedure