Constitutional Court

KI37/18 Applicant: Naser Avdyli, constitutional review of Judgment PML. No. 225/2017, of the Supreme Court of 18 December 2017

 KI37/18, Resolution on Inadmissibility of 30 May 2018, published on 11 June 2018

Keywords: individual referral, criminal proceedings, manifestly ill-founded

The Referral is based on Article 113 [Jurisdiction and Authorized Parties] of the Constitution, Article 47 [Individual Requests] of the Law No. 03/L-121 on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Kosovo (hereinafter: the Law) and Rule 29 [Filing of Referrals and Replies] of the Rules of Procedure of the Court (hereinafter: the Rules of Procedure).

The Applicant alleges a violation of the rights guaranteed by Article 22 [Direct Applicability of International Agreements and Instruments], Article 31 [Right to Fair and Impartial Trial], Article 33 [The Principle of Legality and Proportionality in Criminal Cases], of the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo (hereinafter: the Constitution), and Article 6 (Right to a fair trial) and Article 7 (No punishment without law) of the European Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter: the ECHR).

The Applicant further alleges that the courts violated Article 33 [The Principle of Legality and Proportionality in Criminal Cases] of the Constitution, because pursuant to the provisions of Article 145, paragraph 2 of the CCRK, it is prescribed that the criminal offense of the organization and participation in a terrorist group constitutes a criminal offense if committed exclusively in the territory of the Republic of Kosovo, and not in the territory of Syria or Jordan, which are not under the jurisdiction of the Kosovo legal system.

The Court notes that the Supreme Court examined each and every ground of appeal of the Applicant separately and clearly, namely the arguments of inadmissible evidence; lack of legal certainty, contradictory decisions and lack of reasoning in judgments; the lack of reasons presented with regard to decisive facts.

In sum, the Applicant’s Referral is manifestly ill-founded on constitutional basis and is inadmissible in accordance with Rule 36 (1) (d) and (2) (d) of the Rules of Procedure.