Minister Vitia violated the Constitution by putting Prizren in quarantine

Total prejudice:

2. Act of Law: KO 61/20 Foreground: Ismaili Bridge and 29 other Parliamentary deputies of the Republic of Kosovo object to the issue of demand was the assessment of the constitutionality of four (4) health ministry decisions, respectively:

(1) Decisions [r. 214 / IV/20], of April 12, 2020, ) for announcing the Prizren municipality “area quarantine”;

(2) Decisions [r. 229/ IV/20], of April 14, 2020, “for prevention, combating and eliminating COVID-19 infectious disease in Prizren municipality territory”;

(3) Decisions [r. 238 / IV/20], of April 14, 2020, “for prevention, combating and eliminating COVID-19 infectious disease in the territory of the Dragas municipality”

(4) Decisions [r. 239/ IV/20], of April 14, 2020, “for prevention, combating and eliminating COVID-19 infectious disease in the territory of the Istog municipality” Predators claimed the above-mentioned decisions were not in accordance with articles 35 [Freedom of movement] and 55 [Confirming fundamental rights and freedoms] of the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo. Predators of the motion also claimed that the verdicts are contrary to the Constitutional Court's act in the KO54/20 case. President of the Republic of Kosovo; Object to issue: “Value Constitution of Decision Decision No. 0115 of the Government of the Republic of Kosovo”, published on April 6, 2020, and also demanded that the Court decide on the provisional suspension of the immediate implementation of controversial decisions until the merit settlement of the case. The request was based on subparagraph (1) paragraph 2 of Article 113 [Juridication and authorized parties] and in Article 2 Article 116 [the judiciary's effect of decisions] of the Constitution, in articles 22, 27, 29 and 30 of Law No. 03 L-121 for the Constitutional Court, as well as the rules 32, 56, and 57 of the Constitutional Court's work regulation. Finals

1. On March 31, 2020, the Court ruled in the case of KO54/20, through which the Act, rendered verdict No. The government's 0115, stating that the same was contrary to Article 55 [coupling Constitutional Rights and Freedoms] of the Constitution in relation to articles 35 [Freedom of Movement], 36 [Public Rights], 43 [Learning Freedom] of the Constitution, and the equivalent articles of KEDNJ, respectively, Article 8 (right to respect private and family life), 11 (Laridom of the gathering and organisation), and 2 (Liria of the EC4N protocol movement No.

2. In the Supreme Court, the Court noted that (i) the government can only enforce a decision of the Parliament that limits a fundamental right and freedom, and only to the specific extent that it has authorized the Assembly through the proper law; and that (i) the Ministry of Health, the Government, respectively, is authorized to issue decisions with the intent of preventing and combating pandemic, only to the extent it is authorized through the Law No. 02/ L-109 for Combating and Prevention of Influencing Diseases and Law No. 04/L-125 to Health. The court had also stressed that these two laws, do not authorize the Ministry of Health, Government, respectively, to limit rights and freedoms guaranteed with the Constitutions at the level of the entire Republic of Kosovo and for all citizens of the Republic of Kosovo without exception.

3. Following the KO54/20 Act on April 14, 2020, through thirty-eight (38) rulings for “preventing, fighting and eliminating the infectious disease COVID-19”, the Health Ministry imposed restrictions on all Kosovo municipalities and on all citizens of the Republic of Kosovo. The court in the current case, KO61/20, is not making the constitutionality assessment of all 30-eight (38) the overarching locations because the applicant did not contest them all.

4. Before the Court, only three (3) of them, the decisions. 229/ IV/20]; [r. 238 / IV/20]; and [r. 239/ IV/20] of April 14, 2020, for the municipalities of Prizren, Dragas and Istog, respectively. Before the Court, the verdict has also been disputed.

[r. 214/ IV/2020]

of April 12th, 2020, of the Ministry of Health for the announcement of the Prizren municipality “area quarantine”.

5. As a result, the constitutional issue involving the Ko61/20 Act is compatible with articles 35 and 55 of the constitution of four (4) contested establishments of the Ministry of Health. The court, in assessing their constitutionality, based on Article 55 of the Constitution, the court's judicial practice, including the KO54/20 Act, and the ECHR judicial practice regarding Article 2 protocol No. 4 KEDNJ's 4 has estimated whether “interventions”, respectively, restrictions on the freedom of movement of Prizren's municipalities, Dragas and Istog, -- (i) are “defined in law”, respectively, at the No.02/ Law, respectively. L-109 for Combating and Prevention of Influencing Diseases; (i) follow a set of legitimate “goals”; and (ii) are “dodyable in a democratic society”.

6. Based on the reviews and evaluations of the letters handed down to the Court and its judicial practice, the Court, unanimously, decided to announce the KO61/20 requirement acceptable to the credit because all conditions of compliance with the Constitution have been met, the Law for Constitutional Court and the Labour Rule.

7. The court also ruled that the verdicts “for prevention, combating and eliminating the infectious disease COVID-19” in the Prizren municipality, Dragas and Istog, respectively, are in line with the Constitution, with the exception of the relevant points of the device, which determines administrative countervatations, while the decision to declare <x2zone <x2) quarantine” in Prizren's municipality declared in opposition to the constitution.

8. More precisely, the Court unanimously ruled that (i) the verdict [in]. 229/ IV/20] of the Ministry of Health's April 14, 2020, “for prevention, combating and eliminating the infectious disease COVID-19” in Prizren municipality (Picts I, II, III, IV, VI, VII and VI III); and (ii) Decisions [r.238 / IV/2020] and [n. 239/ IV/20] of April 14, 2020, of the Ministry of Health, “for prevention, combating and eliminating COVID-19” in the Dragas and Istog (Picts I, II, III, V, VII and VII), respectively, are compatible with Article 55 of the Constitution in connection with Article 35 of the Constitution and Article 2 of the Protocol No. 4 KEDNJ. As a result, all the exact points of the upper places, the Court declared them constitutional.

9. The Court found that in the establishment of higher locations, the Ministry of Health has acted in accordance with the authorization assigned through Law No. 02/ L-109 for Combating and Prevention of Influencing Diseases,

And therefore “interventions” on the right to free the movement of Prizren's municipalities, Dragas and Istog, through higher points, were “defined in law”. The court also found that the same follow a legitimate “ ”, that of protecting “public health”, respectively, as defined in Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 of KEDNJ; are proportional in relation to “legitimate target” followed; and there are “necessary in a democratic society”.

10. However, the Court, by majority of votes, ruled that (i) the ruling's V point [in]. 229/ IV/20] of April 14, 2020, of the Ministry of Health, “for prevention, combating and eliminating the infectious disease COVID-19” for Prizren's municipality; and (ii) IV Location point. 238 / IV/2020] and [n. 239/ IV/20] of April 14, 2020, of the Ministry of Health, “for prevention, combating and eliminating the infectious disease COVID-19” in the Dragas and Istog municipalities, respectively, where administrative counter-inventions and relevant sanctions are not compatible with Article 55 of the Constitution in relation to Article 35 of the Constitution and Article 2 of the Protocol No. 4 KEDNJ. The court argued that in determining disrespect for the measures envisioned through higher locations such as “administrative opposition”, the Ministry of Health, has exceeded the legal authorization established through Law No. 02/ L-109 for Combating and Prevention of Influencing Diseases. The Court pointed out that based on Law No. 05L-087 for counter-insulting, related violations and sanctions can only be determined by law from the Republic Parliament or by acts of a Communist Assembly, and that such authorization cannot be carried to other organs. Consequently, the administrative transgressions defined through these three disputed settlements are not “defined in law” and, as a result, declared unconstitutional.

11. The court, on the other hand, by majority vote, ruled that the decision [r. 214 / IV/2020] of the Ministry of Health's 12 April 2020, for the announcement of the Prizren municipality “quarantine”, is not compatible with Article 35 and 55 of the Constitution and Article 2 of Protocol No. 4 KEDNJ. The court found that in making this decision, the Ministry of Health has exceeded the competencies established through Law No.02/ L-109 for Combating and Prevention of Influencing Diseases, and subsequently “interventions” on the right to freedom of movement, through quarantine of the entire Prizren municipality, are not “defined in law”. The court clarified that “curantine” under Law No.02/ L-109 for Combating and Prevention of Influencing Diseases can be ordered by the Ministry of Health, after recommending IKSHPK, only for the physical persons who prove or allegedly had direct contact with sick persons or suspected of infectious diseases. Consequently, the Prizren Commission's announcement decision “zone quarantined” was declared unconstitutional.

Twelve. In terms of the provisional demand, the Court found that after the judges' decision to decide in general on the merits of the case and to issue this Act, the same was left and saw.

13. The court also recalled that, through the KO54/20 Act, it had set a further date for its access to force, respectively, on April 13, 2020, stressing that by this date, the relevant institutions of the Republic of Kosovo, primarily the Parliament, should take the necessary measures to ensure that the necessary restrictions of fundamental rights and freedoms in order to maintain public health are made in line with the Constitution and the Ko54/20 Act.

14. The court highlights the fact that in spite of the specific request to the Parliament to announce the Supreme Court “regarding all steps that have been taken by the Parliament of the Republic of Kosovo following the publication of the 31 March 20204/20 K5-20 Convention, the Court has rejected an answer from the Parliament. In this regard, the Court initially points to the fact that it is the legal obligation of all public organs that “support the work of the Constitutional Court and co-operate with the Constitutional Court at its request”. Moreover, the Court highlights the fact that based on the Ko54/20 Act, the Assembly has been forced, whether through the restoration of existing applicable legislation or through the adoption of any new law, to define the most appropriate mechanisms and authorisations, so that the relevant authorities, including the Ministry of Health, including the Government, respectively, take appropriate and necessary measures for combating and preventing COVID-19, in accordance with the Constitution and Act on Ko54/20s. In this context, the Court also highlights in Article 116 the Constitution's Judiciary Effect, based on which Constitutional Court decisions are binding on the judiciary and all persons and institutions of the Republic of Kosovo.

15. The court, in the Ko61/20 Act, has also addressed the prime minister's pre-April 23rd 2020 presentation to the Court on behalf of the Government, titled “money over disrespecting the legal deadline and Constitutional Court's work regulation by the Constitutional Court in case. KO61/20”, through which “think-tank of the Government for” in violation of the essential provisions regarding the procedure and deadlines to be followed” on the part of the Court, also stressing that the “Government will carefully review the legal violations so far and depending on their legal qualifications will take the necessary actions based on the legislation. ” 16. The court, this parachute, as well as all others, has shared it with interested parties in the case. The same will be published in its entirety, along with the Ko61/20 Act, which includes the necessary clarifications regarding this parachute. However, the Court strongly stresses that the government's approach to the Court that reflects this parachute is unacceptable and contrary to the fundamental values of the Republic Constitution. 17. The court re- heats up that it is an independent body in defense of the Constitution and is the final interpreter of the Constitution. The court also recalls that the Constitution attributes it full independence in carrying out its responsibilities. Moreover, it is the constitutional obligation of the Government and all the institutions of the Republic to respect and not interfere with that independence. The court also reminds the government that the Constitution does not attribute any competence to it regarding decision-making judicial power. Respecting the fundamental constitutional values, regarding the division of powers, independence of judicial power, independence and authority of the Constitutional Court and the protection of rule of law, is the constitutional obligation of all branches of power in the Republic of Kosovo. 18. The court ultimately points out that despite the situation created with the COVID-19 pandemic, which has infected the world, rule of law and rule of law must prevail. The Council of Europe has highlighted this in the SG/IVIDD-19 Information Document on April 7, 2020, for the Review of Democracy, Law and Human Rights under the Sanitary Crisis of the Commission of Venice, including that for the Protection of Human Rights in Emergency Cases and Law Control List. All institutions of the Republic are obliged to act in full accordance with relevant constitutional and legal competencies, as well as in accordance with the Court Act. P Um... R THESE ARSYE Constitutional Court of the Republic of Kosovo, in accordance with articles 113.2 (1) and 116 of the Constitutional Court, with Article 20 of the Constitutional Court and rule 59 (2) of the work regulation, on May 1, 2020, V ENDOS

I. T DEATH, unanimously, acceptable demand;

2 / 1 T HOPE, unanimously, that decision

[r.229/ IV/2020]

of April 14, 2020, of the Ministry of Health, “for prevention, combat and elimination of COVID-19” on the territory of Prizren's municipality (Picts I, II, III, IV, VI, VII and VI III, is consistent with Article 55 [Religion of Constitutional Rights and Freedoms] concerning Article 35 [Freedom of Movement] of the Constitution and Article 2 (Freedom of Movement) of Protocol No. 4 KEDNJ;

3 / 1 HOPE, unanimous, That Decisions

[nr.238 / IV/2020]

and [inr. 239/ IV/20] of the Ministry of Health's April 14, 2020, “for prevention, combating and eliminating the infectious disease COVID-19” in the municipality of Dragas and Istog (Picts I, II, III, V, VI and VII), respectively, are compatible with Article 55 [Constantaining Constitutional Rights and Freedoms] of the Constitution regarding Article 35 [Liria of the Constitution] and Article 2 (Lyria of the Protocol) No. 4 KEDNJ;

6 / 1 T HOPE, majority of votes, that decision point V [r.229/ IV/20] of the Ministry of Health's April 14, 2020, “for prevention, combating and eliminating the infectious disease COVID-19” in Prizren's municipality, and location IV point. 238 / IV/2020] and [n. 239/ IV/20] of April 14, 2020, of the Ministry of Health, “for prevention, combating and eliminating the infectious disease COVID-19” in the municipality of Dragas and Istog, due to administrative opposition, are incompatible with Article 55 [Constantial Rights and Freedoms] of the Constitution in connection with Article 35 [Freedom of the Movement] of the Constitution and Article 2 (Freedom of the Protocol) No. 4 KEDNJ;

V. T HOPE, by majority, that decision

[r. 214/ IV/2020]

of April 12th 2020, of the Prizren Ministry of Health for Declare “quarantine”, is not compatible with Article 55 [Constantial Rights and Freedoms] of the Constitution regarding Article 35 [Freedom of the Constitution] and Article 2 (Freedom of Movement) Protocol No. 4 KEDNJ;

6 / 15 T HOPE, invalid, in accordance with Article 116.3 of the Constitution, decision point V.229/ IV/20] and site IV. 238 / IV/2020] and [n. 239/ IV/20], mentioned at point IV of this device, from the day of entry into force of this Act;

6 / 15 HOPE, invalid, in accordance with Article 116.3 of the Constitution, the decision [inn. 214 / IV/20] mentioned at point V of this device, from the day of entry into force of this Act;