Constitutional Court

KI174/18, Applicant Bedri Gashi, Request for interpretation and constitutional review of three documents of the Office of the Disciplinary Counsel

 KI174/18, Resolution approved on 10 April 2019 and published on 7 May 2019

Keywords: Individual referral, inadmissible referral, Office of Disciplinary Counsel, ratione materiae

The Applicant requested the Court to assess three decisions of the Office of the Disciplinary Counsel regarding the conduct of Judge H.G. in the Basic Court of Peja-Branch in Klina.

The Constitution and the ECHR do not recognize the right to prosecution or punishment of third parties (see Perez v. France, paragraph 70; which in fact represents the substance of the Applicant’s request because he is dissatisfied that the ODC “proved the innocence of Judge H.G. by decisions of only 5-6 lines”. The Court found that in the present case the decisions of the Office of the Disciplinary Counsel do not define or affect in any way the Applicant’s personal rights and obligations, his Referral is incompatible with the substantive (ratione materiae) jurisdiction of the Court.

Therefore, the Applicant’s Referral was declared inadmissible because it is incompatible ratione materiae with the Constitution, as established by Article 113.7 of the Constitution, foreseen by Article 48 of the Law and further specified by Rule 39 (3) (b) of the Rules of Procedure.