Constitutional Court

KI61/19 Applicant: Bahrije Baftiu, Constitutional Review of Judgment Rev. no. 304/2018 of 13 November 2018

KI61/19 Resolution on Inadmissibility of 6 November 2019, published on 25 November 2019

Keywords: Individual referral, civil procedure, equality before the law, manifestly ill-founded referral, inadmissible referral

The Applicant challenged the constitutionality of the Judgment Rev. no. 304/2018 of the Supreme Court of 13 November 2018, which as alleged by her violated her rights protected by Articles 24, 31 and 54 in conjunction with Article 21 of the Constitution.

As regards the allegations for violation of Articles 31 and 54, in conjunction with Article 21 of the Constitution, the Court notes that the Applicant alleged that the regular courts did not justify their decisions as regards the application of Article 372 of the LOR concerning the prescription of the claim within the meaning of the said Article. Indeed, the Court assessed that the allegations as such raise issues of law (legality) which fall within the scope of the regular courts and not of the Constitutional Court, because the alleged violations of rights protected by these specific provisions have not been argued and raised to the constitutional level (constitutionality).

As regards the Applicant’s allegation for violation of Article 24 of the Constitution, the Court noted that the Applicant had mentioned certain decisions of the regular courts, claiming that in identical circumstances the regular courts have decided differently. However, she did not enclose those decisions to her Referral as evidence. Therefore, the Court recalls that the burden of building, clarifying and supplementing the Referral rests with the Applicants, who have a direct interest for having their claims and allegations addressed effectively by the Court. For these reasons, the Court cannot take into account the Applicant’s allegations for a violation of Article 24 of the Constitution, namely the allegation of her case being treated differently than other identical cases because in this respect the Referral is not substantiated with material evidence.

In conclusion, the Court ascertained that the Applicant’s Referral, pursuant to Rule 39 (2) of the Rules of Procedure, must be declared manifestly ill-founded on constitutional grounds, because the arguments raised in the Referral do not in any way justify her allegations for violation of Articles 24, 31 and 54 of the Constitution, in conjunction with Article 21 of the Constitution.