Continuous breakthroughs of Kurti Legal Office from secret agreement with NATO to Venice Commission

Today, the Venice Commission has responded today to incumbent Prime Minister Albin Kurti in terms of an opinion request in relation to the president's competencies. In their response, this commission reportedly estimates to respect the Constitutional Court's decision making. This request was submitted to the Venice Commission after the decree of [...] was published.
Today, the Venice Commission has responded today to incumbent Prime Minister Albin Kurti in terms of an opinion request in relation to the president's competencies. In their response, this commission reportedly estimates to respect the Constitutional Court's decision making.
This requirement was submitted to the Venice Commission after the President's decree was published and prior to the decision to impose the provisional measure by the Constitutional Court.
And this is seen as the failure of Prime Minister Albin Kurti's Legal Office in Duty.
Long ago, however, the prime minister's legal office in office had also failed in various issues related to law and Constitution.
Initially, incumbent Prime Minister Albin Kurti had “unveiled” an agreement he had named secret to Kosovo President Hashim Thaci with NATO for moving the Kosovo Security Forces to the north.
He had asked the justice bodies and the judiciary to deal with this secret agreement, but the same turned out to be transparent and press conferences were held for him.
“This agreement is a crucial moment in which the term "North Kosovo" was invented, and it is said that KSF will not go there without the initial consent of KFOR, which has not been approved by Kosovo institutions and which the Parliament has not been informed of and shows that the Association of Serb majority municipalities and the exchange of territories are not two different 48x1>, Kurti had said.
But what was called a secret agreement by Kurt had been known by everyone and even by his boss. NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, but also former Prime Minister Isa Mustafa and President Hashim Thaci.
Kurti's legal office has faced the next failure in drafting preventive measures against COVID-19 pandemic where the circulation of citizens' movement was banned.
Kosovo President Hashim Thaci had sent the government's decision on restricting freedom of movement to the Constitutional States, and the same had found violations in this decision.
In the 31 March verdict, the Constitutional Court had unanimously ruled that the verdict was incompatible with Article 55 of the Constitution, where restrictions on fundamental rights and freedoms are provided.
“The Court unanimously ruled that the government's March 23rd decision is not in agreement with Article 55 [Constantial Rights and Freedoms] of the Constitution ... The court stated that the Government cannot limit any fundamental right and freedom through decisions, if a restriction of proper law is not predestined by law... In the end, the Court is pointing out that the Ministry of Health, respectively, the Government, continues to be authorised to make decisions deliberately preventing and fighting pandemic, as authorized by law. ”, said in the Constitutional Court verdict.
While today, the Venice Commission has decided not to review the Vetevendosje Movement's request to give an opinion on the president's case of forming the government.
As the prime minister's statement announces, since the Constitutional Court has ruled on the provisional move until May 29th, suspending the action of the President's Decree, and since the Court is handling the case, the Commission has praised the decision to hold the Constitutional Court's decision after acting.
“
In this regard, this is the next defeat of Kurti's Legal Office because the interpretation of such cases by the Venice Commission can require Kosovo judicial institutions as advice, but not parties, which in this case is the Vetevendosje Movement or the Office of the Prime Minister.
And it should also be known that the Venice Commission's opinions have a recommendation/challen effect on the institutions of a member state, and in no way a binding effect that can replace the Constitutional Court's verdict. /Lajmi.net










