Constitutional Court

KI195/18 – Constitutional Review of Judgment PAKR. No. 468/18 of the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Kosovo, of 14 November 2018 

KI195/18, Applicant Afrim Haxha

Resolution on Inadmissibility of 23 July 2019

Keywords: individual referral, decision on dismissal, inactive claim, Rule 35 (4) of the Rules of Procedure

The Applicant was found guilty of a specific criminal offense and sentenced by the Basic Court in Mitrovica to imprisonment for the term of 1 (one) year. The same Judgment was confirmed by the Court of Appeal through Judgment [PAKR. no. 468/18] of 14 November 2018. Having challenged the latter, the Applicant filed his Referral with this Court. However, according to the information submitted by the Applicant himself, the Supreme Court had quashed the challenged Judgment before this Court, namely the aforementioned Judgment of the Court of Appeal and remanded the case for retrial to the Court of Appeal.

In light of these facts and circumstances created in the present case, in examining the admissibility of the Referral, the Court notes that the challenged Judgment of the Court of Appeal is no longer in force and as such produces no legal effect on the Applicant. That being so, the Court concluded that the Applicant’s allegations concerning the challenged Judgment of the Court of Appeal constitute claims which are no longer “an active controversy”. Therefore, in accordance with paragraph (4) of Rule 35 of the Rules of Procedure, the Court decided, unanimously, to dismiss the Applicant’s Referral as inadmissible for further review.

Lastly, in regard to the Applicant’s referral that his case be kept active until the Court of Appeal decides again, the Court reasoned that the Referrals cannot be kept active as the Applicant request, as there is no legal basis on which such a thing may be requested from the Court or by virtue of which the Court is allowed to approve such requests. However, the Court noted that the conclusion given in this Decision does not prevent the Applicant from addressing the Court at a later stage again contesting a new act of a public authority which he may claim violates his rights and fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution.

In conclusion, the Applicant’s Referral was rejected as inadmissible for further review pursuant to paragraph (4) of Rule 35 of the Rules of Procedure.