Constitutional Court

KI24/19 Applicant: Valon Miftari, Constitutional Review of Decision Rev. no. 276/18 of the Supreme Court, of 10 September 2018

KI24/19 Resolution on Inadmissibility of 25 September 2019, published on 15 October 2019

Keywords: Individual referral, contested procedure, manifestly ill-founded referral, inadmissible referral

The Applicant, in this case, alleged that the Supreme Court by the challenged Decision Rev. No. 276/2018 of 10 September 2018, whereby it rejected his claim as out of time, has violated his rights protected by Articles 31 and 54 of the Constitution and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

On the basis of the case file, the Court noted that the regular courts dismissed the Applicant’s claim for procedural reasons, having found that the admissibility criteria for a merited review had not been met, because the claim had been filed out of the time limit provided by the laws in force. The Court in this case held that the Applicant’s allegations were in fact related to how the regular courts in his case interpreted the pertinent provisions of the procedural law; therefore, the Court considered that the Applicant’s allegations raise questions of law (legality) which were within the domain of the regular courts and not of the Constitutional Court. On this basis, the Court considered that the decisions of the regular courts were reasoned and that the proceedings, viewed in their entirety, have in no way been unfair or arbitrary (see the ECtHR Case Shub v. Lithuania, No. 17064/06, Judgment of 30 June 2009).

In conclusion, the Court considered that the Referral was manifestly ill-founded on constitutional grounds, as the Applicant did not sufficiently prove and substantiate his allegation of a violation of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution and the Convention. Consequently, the Court concluded that the referral is manifestly ill-founded on constitutional grounds and, pursuant to Rule 39 (2) of the Rules of Procedure, declared the referral inadmissible.