Constitutional Court

The applicant submitted referral pursuant to Article 113.7 of the Constitution, requesting from the Constitutional Court interpretation of a larger number of the Articles of the Constitution, despite the fact that the Applicant does not specify exactly the Articles of the Constitution for which he requires interpretation, but from the Referral it can be concluded that in question are a larger number of constitutional norms whose interpretation requested the Applicant, The Applicant did not present to the Court specific facts regarding the subject matter of the Referral, but he refers the Court to a number of Web sites and expresses his willingness to assist the Court in finding facts. The Applicant has also requested in his Referral the protection of his identity, Applicant did not specify exactly the Articles of the Constitution, which he alleges that were violated. He also did not provide further evidence, which would be of relevance to the decision of the court, Deciding on the Referral of the Applicant Liridon Aliu, the Constitutional Court considers that the Applicant is not the authorized party to challenge the constitutionality of a larger number of Articles in the abstract and therefore declared this Referral as inadmissible, because the Referral was submitted by an unauthorized party.