Constitutional Court

Case no. KI05/20, Applicant: Labinot Namani, Constitutional Review of the Judgment Rev. no. 324/2019 of the Supreme Court of Kosovo of 17 October 2019

Keywords: individual referral, manifestly ill-founded referral

The Applicant challenges the constitutionality of the Judgment [Rev.no.324/2019] of 17 October 2019 of the Supreme Court of Kosovo, where he alleges that his rights guaranteed by Articles 24 [Equality Before the Law] and 31 [Right to Fair and Impartial Trial] of the Constitution in conjunction to Article 6 (Right to a due process) of the European Convention on Human Rights (hereinafter: ECHR) have been violated.

In this regard, the Court notes that, in essence, the Applicant complains that in his case the regular courts have violated his rights guaranteed by Article 31 of the Constitution, as they have not correctly established the factual situation, because he had not caused injury to the interested party F.O. and that he had been injured due to the fall from the bicycle and not his actions. The Applicant also states that as a result of substantial violations of the provisions of the contested procedure and erroneous application of the substantive law, the regular courts have obliged him to compensate the damage in the amount adjudicated. With regard to the above allegations, the Court considers that the Applicant has constructed his case on the basis of legality, namely on the erroneous determination of the facts regarding the decision (i) on his guilt in relation to the injury of the interested party by a blunt instrument; and (ii) on approval as grounded of the claim of the interested party F.O. for compensation of non-material damage suffered in the accident/ incident of 12 January 2006.

The Court concludes that these allegations of the Applicant are related to the field of legality and as such do not fall under the jurisdiction of the Court, and therefore, in principle, cannot be reviewed by the Court (see Court cases, KI101/19, with Applicant Ljubiša Trajković, Resolution on Inadmissibility of 4 December 2020, paragraph 43; KI56/17, with Applicant Lumturije Murtezaj, Resolution on Inadmissibility, of 18 December 2017, paragraph 35).

On the other hand, with regard to the allegation of a violation of Article 24, the Court notes that the mere fact that the Applicant is not satisfied with the outcome of the Judgment of the Supreme Court or by merely mentioning the articles of the Constitution is not sufficient to establish an allegation of a constitutional violation. When alleging such violations of the Constitution, the applicants must provide reasoned allegations and convincing arguments (see, in this context, Court cases, KI81/19, with Applicant Skender Podrimqaku, Resolution on Inadmissibility of 5 December 2019, paragraph 76; KI78/19, with Applicant Miodrag Pavic, Resolution on Inadmissibility of 1 November 2019, paragraph 56).

In conclusion, the Referral is manifestly ill-founded on constitutional grounds and must be declared inadmissible, in accordance with Article 113.1 and 113.7 of the Constitution and Rule 39 (2) of the Rules of Procedure.