Constitutional Court

KI116/17, Applicant Ahmet Ajeti, Constitutional review of Judgment PML. no. 213/2017 of the Supreme Court of Kosovo, of 29 August 2017

KI116/17, Resolution on inadmissibility of 1 March 2018, published on 23 April 2018.

Key words: individual referral, criminal procedure, extradition, manifestly ill-founded referral

The Applicant filed a referral with the Court requesting the constitutional review of Judgment PML. no. 213/2017 of the Supreme Court of Kosovo. The Applicant alleges that the challenged Judgment had violated his rights guaranteed by the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo, the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Freedoms, and the relevant provisions of the International Covenant for the Protection of Civil and Political Rights. The Applicant alleged that in the event of his extradition to the Republic of Albania there is no sufficient and credible guarantee that he will be allowed or provided retrial.

The Court noted that the proceedings for the Applicant’s extradition had been conducted based on the Bilateral Agreement on Extradition entered into by the Republic of Kosovo and Republic of Albania, and the Law on International Legal Cooperation in Criminal Matters. In this regard, the Court found that after receiving a letter from the Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Albania, whereby the Applicant was provided with guarantees that his right to retrial would be respected “[…] by reestablishing the deadline for appealing or reviewing the decision”, the Basic Court in Prishtina concluded in its Judgment that all the legal conditions to allow the Applicant’s extradition to the Republic of Albania had been met.  This finding, established by the Basic Court in Prishtina, had been upheld by the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.

Having regard to the reasoning provided in the decisions of ordinary courts, the Court found that the Applicant had neither substantiated nor supported his allegation that the proceedings concluded in the ordinary courts were unfair or arbitrary or that his rights and fundamental freedoms protected by the Government had been violated as a result of the decisions of these courts. In conclusion, the Court found the Applicant’s referral as manifestly ill-founded on constitutional basis hence inadmissible.