“The BQK's decision to expensive insurance is illegal”

The Group for Juridical and Political Studies (GLPS) has analysed the BQK's decision to increase auto insurance fees, which, according to the CEC, has undertaken in the process of revising the risk for mandatory auto-responsibilities.

GLPS estimates that the BEC's decision constitutes a hasty, unequipped company in broad consultation including the consumer community, and in time of an institutional transition in which the CEC remains uncontrolled by the Parliament under the determination of the constitutional rate.

Although the Law on Auto-Determined Security (Nen 8), and the constitutional rate, are recognized in the BQI exhibition as authorising to determine its maximum wage limit and safeguarding price, it must be ensured that it is in line with maintaining macro-fiscal and social market stability. In the current case, the CEC has increased auto-responsive insurance tariffs to a popular extent, arguing that it reflects the 18-year market inflation rate in Kosovo. We appreciate that such rationale for such funlopant growth cannot be sustainable, and for some reason”, said the GLPS communiqué.

According to them, the first reason is that this decision was taken at a time when Parliament, as a body under the constitution, oversees The BQ is dissistent and subsequently non-fundial.

“The CEC could not make a decision with such a social and destabilising impact on the insurance market without being thoroughly consulted with the responsible parliamentary commission, and the Kosovo Assembly in general. The Parliament and its parliamentary commissions advocate public interest in the most reliable way, so the constitution and the law envision the supervision of the CEC from the Assembly and its commissions. Making such a decision in this institutional darkness is abusive and unacceptable”, the communiqué follows.

The second reason for GLPS is that increased auto-responsibilities insurance fees by reflecting whether 18-year-old inflation is unacceptable to be done through a single decision.

When the law specifys that the CEC transfers competence to determine the ping structure and the price of insurance tariffs under law, it refers not only to the provider's interest but also to the consumer community, respectively to police holders. Consequently, the CEC could not after 18 years take a simple and only in calls that are reflection of the interests of the insurance companies, thus bypassing an analysis of the social and consumer impact of this hasty move on police holders. Moreover, BQK, as an independent financial market regulator, cannot impose measures that have a fungenant effect on the consumer side of the market, but responsible to address measures that are gradually reasonable if needs reflect growth. Any other behaviour to this questions its political-makers' independence and the preservation of the legality that she should show to private parties in the market”, it says among other things.

Similarly, GLPS says that increasing auto-responsability fees for the police-management group 1 cannot be the first step in the chain of steps for the so-called stabilisation of the insurance market, because BQK has once to exercise a thorough assessment of the potential for the distribution of insurance sector money, their regulation in proportion to the damage of parties, their financial liquidity and their intelligence on the financial market, and only after they are all the most substantial para-commers of the market, undertakes reviews of the tariffs.

Therefore, GLPS seeks from the BEC to replay its decision to increase auto-responsibilities insurance tariffs to the Kosovo Assembly's establishment, and only after to consult a public hearing the parliamentary responsibility commission, the Ministry of Finance, the Consumer Community, and publicise the results of the review on financial parameters not only but also the social impact, to decide on the issue.