Constitutional Court

KI84 / 19, Applicant Merita Ramadani, Referral for constitutional review of Decision Ae. no. 279/18 of the Court of Appeals, of  30 January  2019

KI84/19, Resolution on Inadmissibility of 7 November 2019, published on 10 December 2019

Keywords: Ruling on Inadmissibility, two Court procedures, bankruptcy proceedings and request for repetititon of the procedure, request for non-disclosure of Identity, out of time, ratione materiae

The subject matter of the Referral was the constitutional review of the challenged decision of the Court of Appeal, which as alleged by Applicant violated  her  fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by Article 31 [Right to Fair and Impartial Trial] of the Constitution and the rights guaranteed by Article 6 (Right to a fair trial), of the ECHR.

The Applicant requested from the Court not to disclose her identity because she  “considered the case to be sensitive, and for personal reasons of the party”.

Having examined the Applicant’s Referral, the Court concluded that in her Referral there are essentially two separate court procedures.

The first procedure was conducted in connection with the bankruptcy of a company in which she had 49 percent of ownership, and that procedure was completed by the Decision of the Court of Appeals in 2015.

She initiated the second court procedure on 14 June 2018, in which she requested the repetition of the contested procedure, which was completed by the Decision of the Court of Appeals, of 30 January 30, 2019.

The Court, taking into account the date of completion of the first court procedure, which is 8 June 2015, concluded that it was out of time for it to deal with the allegations  from the Referral in relation to that court procedure.

As to the request to repeat the contested procedure, the Court concluded that Article 31 of the Constitution and Article 6 of the ECHR do not apply to unsuccessful attempts to reopen criminal or civil proceedings, on the basis of new facts or through extraordinary or specific review for procedural reasons, which are not directly available to natural persons and implementation of which depends on the discretionary authorizations of a specific authority. Therefore, the Court dismissed the request for the repetition of the contested procedure as ratione materiae in accordance with the Constitution, and pursuant to the Rule 39 (3) (b) of the Rules of Procedure.

As to the Referral for non-disclosure of identity, the Court rejected also this Applicant’s Referral as unfounded.