Constitutional Court

KI34/21, Applicant: Skender Murseli, Constitutional Review of unspecified act of public authority 

KI34/21, Decision of 5 May 2021, published on 25 May 2021 

Key words: individual referral, incomplete referral, decision to reject the referral

Based on the case files, the Applicant lives in Germany and he sent his vote by mail for the parliamentary elections of the Republic of Kosovo of 14 February 2021. Also, based on the case files, the Applicant had sent two letters, which he called “test” to the Court and the Central Elections Commission.

The Applicant, in his first letter, had not challenged any concrete act of any public authority and had not accurately clarified what rights and fundamental freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution he claimed to have been violated through any act of a public authority. He had addressed the Court few documents/claims which did neither explain nor specify his claims for constitutional violation

Considering the fact that the Referral of the Applicant was incomplete, the Court sent a letter to the Applicant, requesting him, based on paragraph 7 of Article 113 of the Constitution, Articles 47 and 48 of the Law on the Constitutional Court and point (d) of paragraph (1) of Rule 39 of the Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court, before the Court he must (i) specify the act of public authority being challenged; and (ii) accurately clarify what rights he claims to have been violated through the relevant act of public authority. The Court also requested the Applicant to (i) fill in the Referral Form of the Court; and (ii) attach additional documents related to the decisions of the public authority he is challenging.

The Applicant sent a reply, via electronic mail, to the Court as well as the referral form, but did not provide the clarification requested by the Court. Consequently, the Court once again addressed the Applicant, notifying him of the registration of the Referral and repeating the requests as in the first letter.  The Applicant, via electronic mail, repeated his claims, but did not provide any of the clarifications requested by the Court through two consecutive requests.

Therefore, considering that the Referral was incomplete and unclear, despite the requests of the Court to supplement the Referral, the Court found that the Referral of the Applicant does not meet the procedural requirements for further review, as defined in paragraph (5) of Rule 35 of the Rules of Procedure, as consequently, summarily rejected the Referral.