Constitutional Court

Case No. KI85/20, Applicant: Shpëtim Bokshi, Constitutional review of Decision Ac. No. 4273/19, of the Court of Appeals of Kosovo, of 5 February 2020

Keywords: individual referral, enforcement of decision, manifestly ill-founded referral

It results from the case file that the Applicant conducted three various procedures before the public authorities of the Republic of Kosovo, namely: i) enforcement procedure, ii) criminal procedure and iii) procedure according to the claim for annulment of the ICMM Decision No. 3777.

The Applicant considers that while by the Judgment [P. No. 922/17] of 14 June 2019 of the Basic Court he was acquitted of the charge, by analogy it results that the Decision [No. 3777] of 31 August 2017 of the Independent Commission for Mines and Minerals (hereinafter: the ICMM), pursuant to sub-paragraph 1.2, paragraph 1, of Article 71 [Reasons for objections] of the Law on Enforcement Procedure, has lost its legal effect and as such may not have the effects of the enforcement title. The latter also alleged the unreasoned decision of the Decision [Ac. No. 4273/19] of 5 February 2020, of the Court of Appeals of Kosovo and arbitrary interpretation of the law in which case the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by Article 31 of the Constitution and Article 6 of the ECHR were violated.

In this regard, regarding this allegation of the Applicant, the Court finds that the Decision of the Court of Appeals, in its reasoning does not contain flaws that affect its constitutionality.

Also, taking into account the circumstances of the case, the allegations raised by the Applicant and the facts presented by him, the Court, also based on the standards set in its case law in similar cases and the case law of the ECtHR, holds that the Applicant has not proved and has not sufficiently substantiated his allegations that the proceedings before the regular courts were in any way unfair or arbitrary and that through the challenged Decision the rights and freedoms guaranteed by Article 31 of the Constitution and Article 6 of the ECHR have been violated.

In conclusion, the Court considers that the Referral is inadmissible, because the Applicant does not prove or sufficiently substantiate his allegation of a violation of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the Convention. Therefore, this Referral is manifestly ill-founded on constitutional basis and is declared inadmissible, as established in Article 113.7 of the Constitution and further specified in Rule 39 (2) of the Rules of Procedure.