Constitutional Court

KI136/18, Applicant: Fisnik Emini, constitutional review of Judgment PML. No. 173/2018 of the Supreme Court of 16 July 2018

KI136/18, Resolution on Inadmissibility of  7 February 2018, published on 20 March 2019

Keywords: individual referral, constitutional review of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Kosovo, manifestly ill-founded

The Applicant submitted the Referral based on Article 113.7 of the Constitution, Articles 27 and 47 of the Law No. 03/L-121 on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Kosovo and Rule 32 of the Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Kosovo.

On 5 May 2017, the Basic Court in Gjilan by Judgment P. No. 555/2014, found the Applicant guilty of a criminal offense of endangering traffic safety and causing a traffic accident and imposed a fine on him.

The Court of Appeals approved the Applicant’s appeal, annulled the first instance decision of the Basic Court and remanded the case to the same court for retrial.

The Basic Court in Gjilan in the repeated procedure by Judgment No. 338/2017, found the Applicant guilty of a criminal offense of endangering traffic safety and causing a traffic accident and imposed a fine on him.

The Court of Appeals rejected as ungrounded the appeals of the Applicant and of the Basic Prosecutor’s Office and upheld the Judgment (PP. No. 338/2017) of the Basic Court in entirety.

The Supreme Court (by Judgment Pml No. 173/2018) rejected as ungrounded, the request for protection of legality of the Applicant.

In his Referral submitted to the Court, the Applicant only mentions Article 6 of the ECHR and Article 141 of the CCK without accurately clarifying the facts and allegations of violation of constitutional rights.

Accordingly, in the circumstances of this case, the Applicant’s Referral is in accordance with the requirements established in paragraphs 1 and 7 of Article 113 of the Constitution and Articles 47 and 49 of the Law. However, the Applicant’s Referral does not meet the admissibility requirements as foreseen by Article 48 of the Law and item (d) of paragraph (1) of Rule 39 of the Rules of Procedure.

Therefore, the Court declared the Applicant’s Referral inadmissible, becuase it does not meet the admissibility requirements, as it is provided by Article 48 of the Law and item  (d) paragraph (1) of Rule 39 of the Rules of Procedure.