Constitutional Court

KI75/19, Applicant: Naim Prokshi, Constitutional review of Judgment Pml. no. 4/2019 of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kosovo, of 4 February 2019

KI75/19, Resolution on Inadmissibility, adopted on 11 March 2020

Keywords: individual referral, the referral does not clarify and does not adequately present the facts and allegations, the charge against a third person, jurisdiction ratione materiae, inadmissible referral.

The circumstances of the concrete case involve a criminal procedure initiated and conducted against the person F.B as a result of the criminal report of the Applicant concerning the criminal offence of False report or charge. This criminal report resulted in the filing of an indictment against the person F.B who was found guilty by the respective Judgment of the Basic Court that was confirmed by the Court of Appeals. These two judgments were declared invalid by the Supreme Court, which acquitted the person F.B. of all charges. Consequently, the Applicant challenges before the Court the Judgment of the Supreme Court relating to a “criminal charge” against a third person, alleging that the said judgment violated his fundamental rights and freedoms under Article 31 [Right to a Trial Right and Impartial] of the Constitution in relation to Article 6 (Right to a due process of law) of the European Convention on Human Rights and Articles 23 [Human Dignity] and 24 [Equality before the Law] of the Constitution.

As regards the Applicant’s allegations for violation of his fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by Article 31 of the Constitution in conjunction with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Court referred to its case law and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, emphasizing that the Constitution and the ECHR do not guarantee the right to prosecute or punish a third party for a criminal offence and, consequently, it found that these Applicant’s allegations do not fall within the scope of the aforementioned articles of the Constitution and the ECHR, therefore, it declared them admissible because on the basis of item b) of paragraph 1 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Procedure they are incompatible ratione materiae with  the Constitution.

Whereas, as regards the allegations for violation of his fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by Articles 23 and 24 of the Constitution, respectively, the Court emphasized that the allegations or unjustified or unsubstantiated complaints having no support of arguments and evidence, based on its case law and the case law of the European Court of Human Rights are declared inadmissible as manifestly ill founded, pursuant to paragraph 2 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Procedure.

Consequently, the Court decided to declare the Applicant’s Referral inadmissible, based on Article 113 of the Constitution, Articles 47 and 48 of the Law, and Rules 39 (2) and 39 (3) (b) of the Rules of Procedure.