Constitutional Court

KI243/19, Applicant: Muhamet Idrizi, Constitutional review of Judgment PML. No. 290/2019 of the Supreme Court of Kosovo, of 21 October 2019

KI243/19, Resolution on Inadmissibility, adopted on 16 September 2020, published on 06 October 2020

Keywords: individual referral, criminal procedure, manifestly ill-founded referral, inadmissible referral

The Referral was submitted by Muhamet Idrizi, residing in the Municipality of Viti.

The Applicant therefore challenges the abovementioned Judgment, alleging in essence a violation of the right to a fair and impartial trial. The Applicant essentially requests the Court to declare his Referral admissible; annul all decisions of the regular courts and remand his case for retrial to the first instance court, and complains that he was not properly represented by his lawyer.

In assessing the Applicant’s allegations, the Court reiterates its general position that it is not its duty to deal with errors of fact or law allegedly committed by the regular courts (legality), unless and insofar as they may have violated the fundamental rights and freedoms protected by the Constitution (constitutionality). If it were otherwise, the Court would be acting as a court of “fourth instance”, which would result in exceeding the limits set by its jurisdiction. In accordance with its already consolidated case-law, the Court reiterates that it is the role of the regular courts to interpret and apply the pertinent rules of procedural and substantive law and that the Constitutional Court cannot make assessments as to why a regular court has decided in one way and not in another (see case of the Court KI70/11, Applicant Faik Hima, Magbule Hima and Besart Hima, Resolution on Inadmissibility of 16 December 2011).

Based on the case file, the Court notes that the reasoning given in the Judgment of the Supreme Court is clear and after reviewing all the proceedings, the Court also found that the proceedings before the regular courts were not unfair or arbitrary.

Regarding the allegation concerning his defense counsel, where, according to the Applicant, his defense counsel acted in violation of the Law on the Bar to the detriment of his interests, which in fact does not constitute a valid argument for review before the Constitutional Court, moreover when the Applicant himself had the opportunity to revoke his defense counsel at all stages of the proceedings, and it is proved that he did not do so until now. The Court reiterates that the bringing the lawyer or the representative authorized by the Applicant himself is responsibility of the Applicant. Any procedural action or inaction on the representative’s part are in principle attributable to the applicant himself.

Therefore, taking into account the allegations raised by the Applicant and the facts presented by him, the Court, also based on the standards established in its case law in similar cases and the case law of the ECtHR, finds that the Applicant has not proved and has not sufficiently substantiated his allegations of violation of his fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution and the ECHR. Consequently, the Referral on constitutional basis, in accordance with Article 113.7 of the Constitution, Articles 20 and 47 of the Law and Rule 39 (2) of the Rules of Procedure, is manifestly ill-founded and is to be declared inadmissible.