Constitutional Court

KI94/17, Applicant: Muhamedali Ceyşülmedine, Constitutional review of the length of the criminal proceedings in the repeated proceeding before the Basic Court in Prizren

KI94/17, Resolution of inadmissibility of 28 February 2018, published on 7 May 2018

Key words: individual referral, constitutional review of the length of criminal proceedings, Basic Court in Prizren, non-exhaustion of all legal remedies

The Referral is based on Article 113.7 of the Constitution, Articles 47 of Law no. 03/L-121 on the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Kosovo, and Rule 29 of the Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court.

This case is about the criminal proceedings initiated by the Basic Prosecutor’s Office against M.P. on the grounds of grounded suspicion that he has committed the criminal offence of causing light and severe bodily injuries to the Applicant. In this regard, the Basic Court rendered Judgment K. no. 1246/13 whereby it found M.P. guilty and sentenced him to one year of imprisonment and imposed the accessary punishment of fine on him.

Against the Judgment of the Basic Court in Prizren, the Applicant and the accused submitted their appeals to the Court of Appeals, which rendered Decision PA1. no. 467/2016 and granted the appeal of the accused M.P., annulled Judgment K. no. 1246/13 of the Basic Court, remanded the case for retrial, and rejected the Applicant’s appeal.

After the repeated criminal proceedings, the Basic Court found M.P. guilty again and sentenced him to one year of imprisonment and imposed on him the accessary punishment of fine. The applicant and the tried person filed appeals with the Court of Appeals against the Judgment of the Basic Court.

The Applicant alleges that the judge of the Basic Court unnecessarily delayed the proceedings by consistently postponing the court hearing to the favour of the accused, thereby violating Articles 3, 24, and 31 of the Constitution.

As regards this allegation of the Applicant, the Court notes that the proceedings are still pending before the Court of Appeals. Consequently, the Court considers that the Applicant has not yet exhausted all legal remedies provided by law.

Therefore, the Referral is to be rejected as inadmissible because the Applicant has not exhausted all the available legal remedies as determined by Article 113.7 of the Constitution, Article 47.2 of the Law, and Rule 36 (1) (b) of the Rules of Procedure.