Constitutional Court

The Referral of the First Applicant is based on Articles 113,7 and 21,4 of the Constitution; Articles 20, 22,7 and 22,8 of the Law no, 03/L-121 on the Constitutional Court of 15 January 2009 (hereinafter, the Law) and Rule 56 (2) of the Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court (hereinafter, the Rules of Procedure),
The Referral of the second Applicant is based on Article 113,4 of the Constitution, The Referral Applicants filed the Referrals with the Court on 10 January 2013 and 05 March 2013, The first Applicant alleges that that Law “is against the fundamental human rights because it doesn’t respect the right on property”, The second Applicant alleges that the Law “diminishes and violates the property of the municipality, it violates its interests (it diminishes the revenues)”, The President with Decision (no, GJR, KI 03/13 of 30 January 2013), appointed Judge Almiro Rodrigues as a Judge Rapporteur, and on the same day the President with Decision KSH 03/13 appointed the Review Panel composed of Judges Altay Suroy (Presiding), Kadri Kryeziu and Arta Rama Hajrizi, Upon reviewing the case the Court notes that, Firstly, the first Applicant has not specified an act of a state authority (see Article 48 of the Law on the Constitutional Court) that has allegedly violated their individual rights and freedoms guaranteed bu the Constitution and international conventions which are directly applicable in the Republic of Kosovo, Secondly, the Court also notes that the second Applicant states that the Law no, 03/L-121 on National Park “Bjeshket e Nemuna” diminishes and violates the property of the municipality, it violates its interests (it diminishes the revenues)”, As to the first Applicant, the Court considers that the Constitution does not provide for actio popularis, which is a modality of individual’s complaint enabling them to initiate abstract review regardless of their specific legal interest in the case in question, As to the second Applicant, the Court considers that the initial and additional clarification and evidence submitted by the second Applicant is not pertinent and relevant to reasonably conclude that the Municipality is affected by the challenged law, by infringing upon its responsibilities or diminishing its revenues, Pursuant to Article 113,4 [Jurisdiction and Authorized Parties] of the Constitution, In conclusion, under Article 113 (1) of the Constitution, the Court cannot decide on a matter that is not referred to it in a legal manner, because, in accordance with the combined legal provisions of Article 113 (4) and (7) of the Constitution, the first and second Applicants are not authorized parties, Pursuant to this on the session held on 15 May 2013, the Court concluded that both Referrals KI 03/13 and 28/13 are inadmissible