Constitutional Court

The Applicants, three lawyers, filed a Referral pursuant to Articles 113.1 and 113.7 of the Constitution, and Articles 6 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, asserting that two conflicting provisions of an UNMIK Administrative Direction were discriminatory and violated Articles 5, 23, 24 and 31 of the Constitution because parties in some cases were required to bear the expense of translating documents into English and in other cases the translations were prepared by the Special Chamber, The Court held that the Referral was inadmissible pursuant to Articles 53 and 113.7 of the Constitution, Article 47.1 of the Law on the Constitutional Court and Rule 69 of the Rules of Procedure because none of the Applicants had demonstrated that he was an authorized party to a Referral based on a violation of his individual Constitutional rights or freedoms. The Court emphasized that a complaint of a Constitutional violation brought as an actio popularis by someone who was not directly affected is inadmissible, citing Ilhan v. Turkey