Official constitutional announcement: Haradinaj has not violated the law with salary hikes

The Constitutional Court has ruled over the Vetevendosje Movement's complaint with which it has contested the Government's decision to raise salaries. The decision in question today has also been made public by the Constitution himself.

On the basis of this decision, it has been found that the Government's decision on salary growth does not conflict with the Constitution.

Moreover in December of this year, Kosovo Prime Minister Ramush Haradinaj had made a decision to raise his salary for himself and his government team.

According to the decision, it is considered that presupposors had not presented convincing evidence to support their claims that the government's controversial decision has produced constitutional effects in the sense of violating the constitutional competencies of the Parliament, or violations of any constitutional provision, as they claimed to be forgers.

Full Court announcement:

Predators have submitted the request to the Constitutional Court for assessing the constitutionality of the Government's decision, No. 04/20. Predators claim the above-mentioned decision is not in accordance with Article 3 [Barazea before the Law], 4 [Creservation Force and Power Division], 7 [Vlerat], 65 [Compensions of the Assembly], 92 [General Patience] and 93 [The Government Comissions], of the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo

The Constitutional Court declared the application for consideration after stating that cases raised in demand are of such complexity that their definition must depend on examining the merits and that demand cannot be considered as clearly unequipped within the understanding of rule 36 (1) (d) of the Order.

After reviewing the claims and arguments of the pre-representors, the Constitutional Court noted: (i) has not testified that the decision on wage growth constitutes constitutional-level issues; (i) based on the arguments presented, does not result in the provision of the Parliament being violated or unable to exercise its constitutional competencies for approval and implementation of the state budget; (ii) on the conflict of interest that it is not within the function of the Court to assess claims for disqualifting the verdicts with the Law for the prevention of the Council of Public Army, because it falls under other cases of organs and conditions (assigned by) as far as far as the pre-consultial violations of the verdicts and the verdicts of the verdicts are concerned. [The] The court added that it is not within its scope to assess or replace public policies defined by the legislative or executive body. The principle of separation of powers forces the Constitutional Court to respect the definition of policies by the constitutional organs. The fundamental decisions of policymaking for the country's governance must be taken by democratic constitutional bodies, by Parliament and Government, respectively. Those organs are in a better position than the Constitutional Court to determine and advance the country's budgetary, economic and social policies.

In this direction, the Constitutional Court considered that pre-tellers of the motion had not presented convincing evidence to support their claims that the government's controversial decision has produced constitutional effects, in the sense of violating the constitutional competencies of the Parliament, or violations of any constitutional provision, as they claimed to pre-deceivers of the demand. However, the Court noted that the government's underground acts should be in accordance with the Constitution and the laws. Moreover, the Court stressed that, in line with the executive nature of its constitutional competencies, the Government is obliged to implement the state budget, adopted by the Parliament. So it is a Government's duty to implement the controversial decision to support the budgetary divisions defined in the 2018 budget and in relevant laws.

Finally, the Constitutional Court, in support of Article 113. 2 (1) and 116. 2 of the Constitution, articles 27 (1), 29 and 30 of the Law, and in support of rules 29, 54, 55, and 56 (1) of the work regulation, found that the Government of the Republic of Kosovo decision No. 20/14, December 20, 2017, is not in conflict with the alleged articles of the Constitution.