Constitutional Court

KI59/20, Applicant: Ramadan Sopaj, constitutional review of Judgment Pml.nr.319/2019 of the Supreme Court of Kosovo, of 10 December 2019

KI59/19, Resolution on Inadmissibility, of 3 February 2021, published on 31 March 2021

Key words: individual referral, criminal procedure, request for interim measure, right to a fair trial, manifestly ill-founded referral, inadmissible referral

The Applicant challenged the constitutionality of Judgment [Pml.nr.319/2019] of the Supreme Court, of 10 December 2019, alleging  violation of his rights guaranteed by Articles 22 [Direct Applicability of International Agreements and Instruments], 24 [Equality before the Law],  31 [Right to Fair and Impartial Trial] of the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo and Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Court, after analyzing the allegations of the Applicant in relation to Article 31 of the Constitution, considered that the Applicant has failed to prove that the challenged decision violated his right to a fair and impartial trial, guaranteed by Article 31 of the Constitution and Article 6 of the ECHR. Consequently, the Court found that the Referral of the Applicant regarding the allegation of violation of Article 31 of the Constitution and Article 6 of the ECHR was manifestly ill-founded on constitutional basis. Also with regard to the allegations of the Applicant of violation of Article 24 of the Constitution, the Court found that the Applicant did not submit any evidence indicating by what identifiable characteristic, or status, he was discriminated against in proceedings before the regular courts. In this regard, the Court considered that it is not sufficient for the Applicants to refer in general to an unequal treatment to establish discrimination, without showing the basis of this inequality.

In conclusion, the Court found that the Applicant has not substantiated his allegation of violation of the right to a fair and impartial trial guaranteed by Article 31 of the Constitution in conjunction with Article 6 of the ECHR, as well as the right to equality before the law guaranteed by Article 24 of the Constitution, in the proceedings whereby he was found guilty of committing criminal offense, under Article 232, paragraph 3, item 10, in conjunction with paragraph 1 of the CCRK. As a result, the Court also rejected the Applicant’s request for imposition of an interim measure, as it could no longer be subject of review while the Referral was declared inadmissible on constitutional basis.