6 hours agoThe Constitution refutes Eem Arifi's complaint
Periskopi(6 years ago)
(6 years ago)The Constitutional Court has rejected the complaint of MP Etem Arifi, who claimed that under the Supreme Court's justice his rights were violated, guaranteed with Article 31 [Rights for Justice and Unright] of the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo, regarding Article 6 (right for a [...]
The Constitutional Court has rejected the complaint by MP Etem Arifi, who claimed that under the Supreme Court's justice his rights were violated, guaranteed with Article 31 [The Rights for Justice and Freeness] of the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo, in connection with Article 6 (Right for a Regular Process) of the European Convention on Protection of Human Rights.
“Objecting the issue of application was the assessment of the constitutionality of the Supreme Court of Kosovo [Pml's] judgment. No. 380/2019], of January 30th 2020, with which the demand for protection and demand for the legality and petitionors was denied, exercised against the Constitutional Court Act in Pristina [Pristina] PKR.nr.740/2016], dated April 20th 2018 and the act of the Kosovo Appeals Court [of Justice] PAK.Nr.328/19], dated August 20, 2019”.
“The applicant claimed that, under the controversial act, his rights, guaranteed with Article 31 [Rights for Law of Law and Impartial] the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo, in connection with Article 6 (Right for a Regular Process) of the European Convention for Protection of Human Rights. The applicant also asked the Court to establish the provisional measure, stressing that: “We are close to the date which is set to be presented to the correct institution for detention, which is 04.05.20. Setting up the provision on the part of the Constitutional Court is vital and of vital importance to the petitioner”.
The request was based on Article 7 - 113 [Juridication and Authorised Palaces] of the Constitution, on Article 22 [Request Processing], 27 [impartial measures] and 47 [ individual requirements] of Law No. 03 L-121 for Constitutional Court, as well as rule 32 [Preparation of requests and responses] and 56 [Exercisively required] of the Constitutional Court's work regulation.
The review college proposed that, in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 7 of Article 113 of the Constitution, with Article 20 of the Constitutional Court Law, and rule 39 (2) 59 (2) of the work order, request be declared unacceptable.
