Is Kurt's candidacy constitutional for prime minister: These are Constitutional findings

Albin Kurti, in January 2018, was convicted of tear gas in the Kosovo Assembly in 2015.

The decision says that “on the basis of Article 71.1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo, in interconnection to Article 29.1 (q) of the General Election Law, the person convicted of criminal acts with a decision of solid form in the last three (3) years, cannot be a candidate for MP, nor win a valid mandate in the Assembly of the Republic of Kosovo”, the Constitutional decision said.

We remember that the Constitutional Court in Pristina, in January 2018, had convicted Albin Kurti of two criminal acts, the use of weapons or dangerous means, and the obstruction of the official person during the official duty, actions related to the drop of tear gas on the Kosovo Assembly in 2015.

Below, find out all the conclusions of the Constitutional Court regarding this matter:

291. As for the constitutional and legal provisions in the Republic of Kosovo, which give answers to cases raised by this request, the Court found that: Article 71.1 of the Constitution, in connection with Article 29.1] of the General Election Law, stipulates that no person can be a candidate for the Parliament's election if he is sentenced to criminal acts with a court decision of cut in the last three years; Article 70.3 (6) of the Constitution stipulates that the MP's mandate ends or becomes worthless if he/she is sentenced to a decision of cut form, to one or more years in prison. This constitutional definition is also reinforced with Article 8,1.6 of the MP's Law for Rights and Responsibilities, Article 112.1.A. of the General Election Law, as well as Article 25.1.d of the Assembly Rule;
292. The court considers that, in terms of the right to run parliamentary elections, articles 45, 55 and 71.1 of the Constitution must be read interlockably. Thus, Article 45 of the Constitution generally speaks of electoral rights, generally determining that they can be limited to judicial decisions, while Article 55 determines the quantum conditions under which human rights guaranteed by the Constitution can be limited. While Article 71 of the Constitution, which speaks exclusively of “qualifications” to run for Parliamentary MP ʹ stipulates that each citizen of the Republic of Kosovo, who is eighteen years old or older, and meets the legal criteria, could be a candidate for MP. These “legal criteria”, referred to as Article 71 of the Constitution, define the Law for General Elections, which in Article 29.1 (q) clearly and explicitly emphasises that no person can be a candidate for parliamentary elections if convicted of criminal action with judicial decision of form cut in the last three years. This constitutional and legal definition is in line with the practice followed by many democratic countries, as noted by the Venice Commission's relevant documents as well as the responses of the Venice Commission Forum member states;
293. The court stresses that the above constitutional and legal norms, which concern inadequacy (inadequacy) to run for MP in general elections, as well as the end or inadequacy of the MP's mandate, as a result of the prison sentence for committing criminal acts, should not be viewed as purpose in itself. In essence, these standards are not primarily aimed at punishing certain individuals by trying to enable them to exercise the MP's office, but are fundamental to protecting constitutional integrity and civic credibility in the legal body, as the pillar of parliamentary democracy;
294. The court considers that civic credibility in the Assembly of the Republic of Kosovo is violated whether, despite the stops that Article 71 of the Constitution puts in touch with Article 29.1 (q) of the Law on General Elections ) is allowed for the MP's mandate to win and exercise a person who has been convicted of criminal work, with judicial decision of the valid form in the Republic of Kosovo.
295. In this regard, the Court brings attention to the Venice Commission's report, which stresses that “legality is an element of the rule of Law and implies that the law should be respected by individuals and authorities. The exercise of political office by those who have seriously violated the law puts at risk the implementation of this principle [the rule of law], which is one of the preconditions of democracy, and therefore jeopardises the democratic nature of the state” (See the Venice Commission's Report on Disfellowshipping Chiefs of Illegal Acts by Parliament, CDL-ADO2015)036, November 23, 2018, paragraph 168.
296. In that spirit, the Court estimates that it is the clear constitutional requirement embedded in Article 71.1 in connection with Article 70.3 (6) of the Constitution, that it is incompatible with the Constitution for a person to gain and retain the MP's mandate if he is convicted of criminal acts, with judicial decision of formal form, as defined by these provisions. This requirement is reinforced with articles 29 and 112 of the Law for General Elections, as well as Article 8.1.6 of the Law on Rights and MP responsible.
297. Furthermore, the Court points out that Article 70.3 (6) of the Constitution, Article 8.1.6 of the MP's Law for Rights and Responsibilities and Article 112.1 (a) of the General Election Law refers to the sentence of MP (for sentence after it has won the mandate), is a reflection of the promise that Article 29.1q) of the Law on the General Elections, which relies on Article 71.1 of the Constitution, does not allow a person sentenced to prison during the last three years before the elections to run for the deputy's term and won the mandate.
298. Consequently, based on the clear language of Article 71.1 of the Constitution in interconnection to Article 29.1 (q) of the General Election Law, as well as the subparagraph 6 of paragraph 3 of Article 70 of the Constitution, the Court considers that no person can win and hold the MP's valid mandate if he is condemned for criminal acts like these provisions, with judicial decision of cut form, if there is a condemnation that is in power in the Republic of Kosovo.
299. The court notes the CEC's clarification that according to the AA Act. -Uzh.nr.16/2017, of September 19, 2017 of the Supreme Court, <x0 Groups cannot be denied the right to race in the elections, if such a right was not taken by judicial ruling, which means, that the candidate should, by decision of form, be convicted, and the court, have pronounced the complete “rule of law to be elected”.
300. However, the Court considers that the Law for General Elections does not require that persons convicted of criminal acts be pronounced necessarily as a supplementary punishment “lifting the right to elect” so they are not allowed to run in parliamentary elections. This is because, according to Article 29.1 of the Law on General Elections, among other things, comes forward these two grounds: (i) lifting the right to be a candidate in the election with the decision of PZAP and the court; and (ii) the inability to be a candidate because of a criminal offence with a final court ruling in the last three years. These are different/separated bases that cause inadequacy/inadequacy to be candidate. The court feels that this interpretation is compatible with the related reading of nines 45, 55 and 71 of the Constitution.
301. The court considers it important to note that the run-up to parliamentary elections of Etem Arifi, his election as MP and the exercise of the MP's mandate all these after he was sentenced to one year and three months in prison, with the judicial decision of the strict form ʹ disfigure the uncertainty of norms and serious shortcomings in the institutional mechanisms of the Republic of Kosovo, which are competent to ensure the legitimacy and constitutional integrity of the election processes and parliamentary activities. This uncertainty is also evident in the answers given by the respective Assembly troops and the CEC.
302. In this regard, the Court points to the need for the Assembly of the Republic of Kosovo to co-operate with its responsible institutions, including the CEC and the CEC, to clarify and consolidate inter-institute co-operation and norms related to running parliamentary elections and exercising the MP's mandate, on the part of persons convicted of criminal acts.
303. This is necessary to avoid paradoxical situations, from a constitutional point of view, where a person, after being sentenced to judicial decision of form cut as envisioned with relevant provisions of the Constitution and laws, is allowed to run in parliamentary elections, elect MP, verify the mandate, and continue to exercise the MP's post in the Parliament of the Republic of Kosovo, even during the suffering of prison sentences. While the Constitution and relevant laws place clear norms of not allowing persons sentenced to prison for committing criminal acts to elect MPs and exercise the MP's mandate.