Constitutional Court

KI137/19, Applicant: Arlind Morina, Constitutional review of Judgment K. No. 6-1022/18 of the Basic Court in Peja, of 18 July 2018

KI137/19, Resolution on inadmissibility, of 2 September 2020, published on 24 September 2020

Keywords: Individual referral, criminal report, minor offence, judicial protection of rights

On 29 June 2018, on “Eliot Engel” street in Peja, the person A.N., while driving her vehicle, hit the Applicant in the left part of the body, causing him bodily injuries. Regarding this, the Traffic Police Station in Peja, submitted to the Basic Court the request DR03004-396-18, for the initiation of minor offence proceedings against person A.N., requesting that she be found responsible and punished for the traffic accident, according to legal provisions under Article 149 [Obligations of drivers towards pedestrians], paragraph 1, of Law No. 05/L-088 on Road Traffic Provisions (hereinafter: Law on Road Traffic). The Basic Court, by Judgment K. No. 06-1022/18, declared the person A.N. responsible for the minor offense, under Article 149 [Obligations of drivers towards pedestrians], paragraph 1, of the Law on Road Traffic and sentenced her with a fine.

The Applicant challenges before the Constitutional Court the Judgment of the Basic Court, of 18 July 2018, which convicted the person A.N., with minor offense as well as the fact that the Basic Court, the Regional Police and the Basic Prosecution did not address the actions of the person A.N., who caused to the Applicant the bodily injuries with her vehicle, as a criminal offense but as a minor offense. Therefore, the Applicant alleges that as a result of this, his rights guaranteed by Article 54 [Judicial Protection of Rights] of the Constitution have been violated.

The Court, as to the Applicant’s allegations regarding Judgment K. No. 6-1022/18, of the Basic Court, noted that the Basic Court found the person A.N. responsible for a minor offense and sentenced the latter with a fine and in this procedure the Applicant was not a party as the request was not initiated by the Applicant. Therefore, the Court found that the request for constitutional review of Judgment K. No. 6-1022/18, of the Basic Court, was not legally submitted by an authorized party as established by Article 113, paragraphs 1 and 7 of the Constitution, Article 47 of the Law, Rule 39 (1) (a) of the Rules of Procedure, and as such is inadmissible.

Whereas regarding the allegation that the Basic Court, the Regional Police and the Basic Prosecution did not address the actions of the person A.N., who caused to the Applicant bodily injuries with her vehicle, as a criminal offense but as a minor offense, the Court noted that the Applicant has not submitted any evidence that he has taken any action to file a criminal report against the person A.N., or whether related to the actions or omissions of the Regional Police and the Basic Prosecution related to the possible criminal charge against the person A.N. had taken any legal action. Therefore, the Court considers that this part of the Referral is declared inadmissible, due to non-exhaustion of legal remedies in accordance with paragraph 7 of Article 113 of the Constitution, paragraph 2 of Article 47 of the Law and further specified through item (b) of paragraph (1) of Rule 39 of the Rules of Procedure.