Constitutional Court

KI21/19, Applicant: Pjetër Boçi, Request for interpretation of relevant legislation regarding the definition of  “official position”

 KI21/19, Resolution on Inadmissibility of 27 May 2019, published on 28 June 2019

Keywords: Individual referral, official person, business organization, unauthorized party

The Applicant states that as a practice instructor in the “Geni” driving school there was a judicial dispute regarding his position. In this regard, he requested the Constitutional Court to interpret the law whether he has the status of an official person, which would help him to resolve his dispute, stating that he was not appointed, had no official authorization, does not work in state organizations, does not work in any business organization, and he is not licensed as an examiner for testing candidates in theory and practice.

In this respect, the Court noted that the Applicant did not challenge any act of a public authority that may have resulted in a violation of his fundamental rights and freedoms. Furthermore, the Applicant had not specifically clarified what rights and freedoms have allegedly been violated by any act of public authority as required by Articles 47 and 48 of the Law of the Constitutional Court.

The Court noted that in fact, the Applicant requests the interpretation in abstracto of the legislation regarding the “official position” and whether he has the status of “an official person”,  in a capacity of an instructor in the “Geni” driving school. In this regard, the Court clarified that the “individuals” (natural and legal persons), within the meaning of Article 113, paragraph 7 of the Constitution, have no right to address directly the Constitutional Court and to request it to assess in abstrakto the constitutionality of a legal norm, or to raise before it hypothetical questions of interpretation of the laws, for which they are not authorized pursuant to Article 113, paragraph 7 of the Constitution.

Therefore, the Court found that in the present case the Applicant is not an authorized party as provided by Article 113, paragraph 1 and 7 of the Constitution, Article 47 of the Law, Rule 39 (1) (a) of the Rules of Procedure, and as such the Referral is inadmissible.