Constitutional Court

KI151/17, Applicant: Elife Murseli, Request for constitutional review of Judgment Pml. No. 195/2017 of the Supreme Court of 11 October 2017

KI151/17, Applicant: Elife Murseli

Resolution of 11 December 2018

Keywords: Individual referral, right to fair and impartial trial, manifestly ill-founded, constitutional violation

On 28 April 2014, in the Prishtina-Ferizaj highway, there was a traffic accident for which according to the competent prosecution, the Applicant was guilty.

On 23 May 2016, the Basic Court in Prishtina-Branch in Lipjan, acting upon the indictment filed by the competent prosecution, after the main trial hearing, by Judgment P. No. 231/14, found the Applicant guilty for the criminal offense “endangering public traffic”, pursuant to Article 378 paragraph 6, in conjunction with paragraph 1 of the CCRK and sentenced her with a fine in the amount determined in the enacting clause of the judgment.

On 11 October 2016, the Court of Appeals, by Judgment PAI. No. 859/2016, upheld in entirety the judgment of the first instance court.

On 11 October 2017, the Supreme Court of Kosovo, by Judgment Pml. No. 195/2017, rejected as ungrounded the request for protection of legality.

The regular courts based the court decisions on the complete determination of the factual situation, with the examination of the witnesses of the case as well as the expertise submitted by the competent experts on the traffic issues.

The Applicant, before the Constitutional Court, alleges a violation of Article 31 [Right to Fair and Impartial Trial] of the Constitution in conjunction with Article 6 of the ECHR [Right to a fair trial].

The Court, having reviewed the Referral, found that the Applicant had many opportunities to present her case before the Basic Court in Prishtina, the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court and, by using the remedies of appeal, participated actively in all the stages of the court proceedings, therefore, the proceedings in its entirety cannot be considered arbitrary or unfair. In the circumstances of the case, the Court does not find that the decisions of the regular courts are arbitrary or are indicative of a violation of the right to fair and impartial trial, more so when all the Applicant’s allegations were related to a legal and not constitutional violation, in which case the Applicant did not in any way present evidence as to how and in what circumstances the alleged constitutional right was violated.