Constitutional Court

KI77/21, Applicant: Halit Korenica, Constitutional review of Judgment PML. No. 30/2021 of the Supreme Court of 25 February 2021

KI77/21, resolution on inadmissibility of 30 June 2021, published on 21 July 2021

Keywords: individual referral, right to fair trial, resolution on inadmissibility

Based on the case law in the Referral, it follows that the Applicant and another person E.L., on 5 June 2018, about 11:30 hours in Rahovec, attacked a third person D.K., while unlawfully taking away his phone and a certain amount of money.

The Basic Prosecutor’s Office filed an indictment against the Applicant and person E.L., for which they were sentenced by final Judgment of the Supreme Court.

The Applicant submitted the Referral to the Court considering that the Judgment of the Supreme Court violates his rights guaranteed by Articles 24 [Equality Before the Law] and 31 [Right to Fair and Impartial Trial] of the Constitution, in conjunction with Article 6 (Right to a fair trial) of the ECHR, highlighting the fact that he was convicted without the main evidence of the commission of a criminal offense.

Regarding the alleged violation of Article 31 of the Constitution and Article 6 of the ECHR, the Court concluded, that the regular courts throughout the entire proceedings complied with the principles of the right to a fair and impartial trial, as provided for in Article 31 of the Constitution in conjunction with Article 6 of the ECHR, and acted exclusively in the spirit of the relevant provisions of the CCK during the determination and qualification of the offense, from which it can also be concluded that there was no violation of Article 2 of the CCK or Article 385 paragraph 1 item 1 of the CPCRK, as stated in the Referral.

As to the allegations of violation of Article 24 of the Constitution, the Court concluded that the Referral should be declared inadmissible as manifestly ill-founded, because these allegations qualify as allegations falling into the category of  (iii) “unsubstantiated or unsupported” allegations, because the Applicant merely cited one or more provisions of the Convention or the Constitution, without explaining how they have been violated. Therefore, the latter are manifestly ill-founded on constitutional basis, as established in paragraph (2) of Rule 39 of the Rules of Procedure.