Constitutional Court

KI46/19 Applicant: Naser Husaj, Constitutional Review of Decision Rev. no. 363/2018 of the Supreme Court, of 13  November  2018

KI46/19 Resolution on Inadmissibility of 4 September, published on 04 October 2019

Keywords: Individual referral, inadmissible revision, manifestly ill- founded referral, inadmissible referral

The Applicant alleges that the Supreme Court, with the challenged Decision, Rev. no. 363/2018, whereby it rejected his request for revision as inadmissible, has violated his rights protected by Articles 31, 46 and 54 of the Constitution.

Referring to its case-law and the case law of the ECtHR, the Court reiterated and emphasized that it is not the duty of the Constitutional Court to deal with errors of fact or of law alleged to have been committed by regular courts in assessing evidence or enforcement of the law (legality), unless and to the extent that they may have violated the rights and freedoms protected by the Constitution (constitutionality). It is the role of the regular courts to interpret and apply the relevant rules of procedural and substantive law.

The Court noted that the Supreme Court had rejected the Applicant’s request for revision as “inadmissible” in the procedural aspect and without considering the merits of the request, by basing upon the provisions of the LCP according to which the request for revision should be declared impermissible in cases where the value of the dispute is below 3,000 Euros. In this respect, the Court noted that the reasoning provided in the Decision of the Supreme Court was clear and after reviewing all the proceedings, the Court also found that the proceedings before the Court of Appeal and the Basic Court were not unfair or arbitrary.

In conclusion, in accordance with Rule 39 (2) of the Rules of Procedure, the Applicant’s Referral is declared manifestly ill-founded on constitutional basis.