Constitution continues suspension of salary law for senior officials

The Constitutional Court has decided to continue suspending the Law of Salaries.

At the session, held today on February 26, 2020, this court decides that the Law of Salaries will be suspended until April 28th.

On November 19th of last year, the constitution had decided to suspend its decision to implement this law until March 30th.

The Constitutional Court's full decision:

At the review hearing held on February 26, 2020, the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Kosovo examined and decided on the requirements: 1. KO 2/03/19; 2 KI 188/19; 3. KI 192/19; 4. KI 206/19; 5. KI 231/19 and 6. KI 10919.

Below, you can read the brief summarys of the Court's decisions (Complete texts of ordination and bias will be handed over to the parties, published on the Court and Official Gazette website over the next few days.):

Decision to Continue Temporary Measures

Subject: KO 23/19

Foreground: Ombudsman

The object of the question of demand was the assessment of the substation of nines 2 (paragraph 3), 5 (paragraph 1, subparagraph 1. 2, and paragraph 2), 10 (paragraphs 1 and 2), 11, 14 (paragraph 5), 15 (paragraphs 4 and 6), 17 (paragraph 7), 31 (paragraph 3), 32 (paragraph 3), 33 (paragraph 5), 34 (paragraph 5), 34 (paragraph 16), 35 (paragraph 6), 37 (paragraph), 37 (paragraph), 38 (paragraph 7), 39 (paragraph 11), 40 (paragraph 12), 41 (paragraph 6), 42 (paragraph 6), 42 (paragraph 10 and 11), 43 (pagraphy 13), 44 (paragraph), 44 (paragraph), 48 (paragraph), 44 (paragraph 9 - material), 52, 52, 52, 54, 27 (paragraph 6th), 6th 6th), 18th (paragraph 18th), 18th, 24th, 24th advance, 44th), 24th centuries earlier, 44th (c) 18th), and 44th in the Law. 06/L-14 for public officials, proclaimed in the Official Journal of the Republic of Kosovo on March 11, 2019, and entered into force six (6) months after publishing in the Official Journal. The applicant claimed that contested articles are not compatible with Article 2 paragraph 132 [Rolley and the powers of the ombudsman] of the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo.

In his request, the foreman also demanded that the Constitutional Court impose temporary measures for the immediate suspension of disputed provisions, which the Court approved after the first review, on November 19, 2019.

The request was based on paragraph 2, subparagraph 1, Article 113 [Juridication and authorized parties] and in paragraph 2 of Article 116 [The Constitution's judicial effect] on the articles 22, 27, 29 and 30 of Law No. 03 L-121 for the Constitutional Court, as well as rules 32, 56 and 57 of the Constitutional Court's work regulation.

The Court, without prejudice against compliance or merit, in accordance with Article 116.2 of the Constitution, with Article 27 of the Constitutional Court Law and the 57 order of the labour order:

T A V EATHER the provisional measure imposed with the interim decision in the case of KO 2/03/19, dated November 19, 2019, until April 28, 2020;

T A V SINCE THE PEACE OF THE Entire Applying of Law No. 06/L-14 for public officials in length defined at point I;

Action

Subject: KI 188/19

Foreground: Saranda Nimani

The subject of the demand issue was the assessment of the constitutionality of the Constitutional Court in Mitrovica [C. 61/2008], on May 14th, 2019, with which the architer claimed to have violated the rights and freedoms guaranteed with Article 46 [the property protection] of the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo.

The request was based on paragraphs 1 and 7 of Article 113 [Juridication and authorised parties] of the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo, at Article 22 [Responding Request], 47 [ individual requests], 48 [exacting the request] and 49 [Afflictions] of Law No. 03 L-21 for Constitutional Court, and rule 32 [Presenting requests and responses] of the Constitutional Court's work regulation.

The Court, in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 7 of Article 113 of the Constitution, with Article 47 of the Constitutional Court Law and rule 39 (1)) of the work order, ruled that demand is unacceptable.

Decision

Subject: KI 192/19

Foreground: Naser Shala

The question of application was the assessment of the constitutionality of the Kosovo Court of Appeals' decision. [ Footnote] CA.nr. 1802/2019, on May 6, 2019, with which, according to pretentious claims, his guaranteed nenet rights have been violated: 22 [direct implementation of international agreements and instruments], 31 [rights for fair and impartial judgment], 46 [Preservement of property], 49 [the right to labour and practice of profession] and 53 [Information of human rights provisions] of the Republic of Kosovo Constitution, as well as us 6 (E) a fair process and protocol 1. 1 (Poverty Protection) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

The request was based on Article 113.7 of the Constitution, Article 47 of the Law No. 03/L-121 for the Constitutional Court, as well as rule 32 of the Constitutional Court's work regulation.

The court, in accordance with Article 113.7 of the Constitution, with Article 22.4 and 48 of the Constitutional Court Law, and with the rules 29 and 35 (5) of the work regulation, decided to reject the request. 

Action

Subject: KI 206/19

Foreground: Mladen Nikolicić

The question of application was the assessment of the constitutionality of the Kosovo Appeal Court's decision. [G50.nr. 6559/2017], dated May 21, 2019, with which the petitioner claimed his rights were violated contrary to Article 478, 479 and 480 of Law No. 03 L-006 for the County Process. The applicant has not clarified exactly what fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed with the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo, claims to have been violated through a controversial ruling.

The request was based on paragraph 1 and 7 of Article 113 [Juridication and authorised parties] of the Constitution, on Article 22 [Permission Processing] and 47 [ individual requests] of Law No. 03 L-21 for Constitutional Court, and rule 32 [Presenting requests and responses] of the Constitutional Court's work regulation.

The Court, in accordance with Article 113.7 of the Constitution, with Article 48 of the Constitutional Court Law and the rule 39 (1)) of the work regulation, ruled that demand is unacceptable.

Action

Subject: Kl 231/19

Foreground: NSH “K O SOVA-EXPORT”

The subject of the issue of demand was to assess the constitutionality of the Supreme Court's Special Chamber Appeals College Act on issues related to the Kosovo Privatisation Agency, [ Footnote] AC-I-15-0212-A0001], dated August 22nd 2019. The forger of the motion claimed that by this act the rights and freedoms guaranteed with Article 3 paragraph 1 [Barazia before the Law], Article 7 [Vlerat], Article 24 paragraph 1 [Present to the Law], Article 31 [Right for Fair and Impartial Judgment], Article 54, and Article 102.

The request was based on articles 21.4 and 113.7 of the Constitution, on Article 22 [Requisition Process], 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 Court, in accordance with paragraphs 1 and 7 of Article 113 of the Constitution, with Article 20 and 27.1 of the Constitutional Court Law, and rules 39 (2) and 57 (1) of the work regulation, ruled that demand is unacceptable.

Action

Subject: KI 10919

Foreground: Mehmet Qerim

The object of the issue of the motion was to assess the constitutionality of the act of the Supreme Court of Kosovo [Pml.5/19], of January 22nd 2019, with which the forger claimed violations of his guaranteed rights with Article 31 [right to fair and impartial judgment] and Article 54 [Judge of Rights] of the Republic of Kosovo Constitution.

The request was based on paragraph 1 and 7 of Article 113 [Juridication and authorised parties] of the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo, at Article 22 [Responding Request], 47 [ individual requests], 48 [exacting the request] and 49 [Afflictions] of Law No. 03 L-21 for Constitutional Court, and rule 32 [Presenting requests and responses] of the Constitutional Court's work regulation.

The Court, in accordance with Article 113.7 of the Constitution, with Article 49 of the Constitutional Court Law and the rule 39 (1)) of the work regulation, ruled that demand is unacceptable.