Kurti's office says its experts will teach the Constitutional Court: It was a very simple matter.

The office of Kosovo's prime minister has reacted after publishing the full constitutional judgment regarding the president's decree.

The prime minister's office in office has accused the Constitutional Court of misrepresenting facts about the automatic distribution of the Parliament following no-confidence motions in 2010 and 2017.

The prime minister's office also says that the Constitutional one has distorted the contents of the Kono-0314 Act, in which it is explicitly stressed by the Court that the president consults only with the political party or coalition that has won the majority, be it relative or absolute. Meanwhile, what the Court says now is that in the spirit of that act the president is not obliged to consult only the first party.

The trial is controversial even in its device. While in reasoning with the indictment (at the conclusion) it stresses that the judges in majority have voted for the compliance of the president's decree with “... paragraph 4 of Article 95 of the Constitution”, in the disposit of the act, the paragraph 4 has been erased. This may not be a technical release or language reform, but it is a controversial presentation of the decision judges have made. They have either voted for Article 95 of the Constitution in its entirety or for Article 4 of Article 95”, the communique says.

Prime Minister Kurti's office suggests that its legal advisers, along with field experts, are preparing a detailed analysis of the whole act of judgment and that the analysis will be published to clarify the absurdity of this decision that we cannot accept.

Full response:

The Constitutional Court Today published the total Act on case no. KO 72/20.

Taking into account that we too have had a copy of the Constitution's feasibility documents bore responsibility that the Court has not presented the exact content of the work of the Constitutional Commission. This commission had specifically rejected the proposal that after the no-confidence motion a new Government would be formed. The court, among other things, has misrepresented the facts about automatic distribution of the Parliament following no-confidence motions in 2010 and 2017.

The court also refers to the opinions of the Venice Commission in terms of constitutional regulations of other states. These constitutional regulations are essentially different from Kosovo's constitutional order, and as such, they have no support for the issue in question. Kosovo's constitutional system has no similarities to either Moldova or Turkey, much less with the United Kingdom, which has a regulatory system that falls into customary law.

The court also distorts the content of the Act of KO 1/03/14, in which it is explicitly stressed by the Court that the president consults only with the political party or the coalition that has won the majority, be it relative or absolute. Meanwhile, what the Court says now is that in the spirit of that act the president is not obliged to consult only the first party.

In addition to contradictions concerning the argument of the Constitution's articles, the procedure followed by the president and his competencies in this phase, the distorted presentation of the election winner's responses, the court is controversial even in its device. While in reasoning with the indictment (at the conclusion) she points out that the judges in majority have voted for the compliance of the president's decree with “... paragraph 4 of Article 95 of the Constitution”, in the dispositive of the court has been erased paragraph 4. This may not be a technical release or language reform, but it is a controversial presentation of the decision judges have made. They have either voted for Article 95 of the Constitution in its entirety or for Article 4 of 95.

Our legal advisers, along with field experts, are preparing a detailed analysis of the entire act of judgment. This analysis will only be published to clarify the absurdity of this decision that we cannot accept.

This has been a very simple constitutional issue. Even 162,000 pages of invented interpretations, let alone 162 pages, cannot conceal that fact.