The Constitution refuses Vjosa Osman's request: The interpretation of two PDK members in the CEC demanded

In reasoning with the decision, among other things, its demand is said to be unacceptable.

“Consequently, in the court's assessment, under the concrete circumstances, the president of the Republic has not filed a conflict with “Constitutional References”, under the definition of Article 113.3.BAR1) of the Constitutional Court, and therefore, the Court announced the President's request of the unacceptable Republic of Kosovo based on Article 113 of the Constitution and refused the request for the provisional move based on Article 27 of the Constitutional Court<3>, the decision is said.

She had demanded interpretation if The PDK, as the second party, belongs to two members in the CEC.

Next you find the full notification:

Media Notification

The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Kosovo today reviewed the KO 88/21 request, submitted by the president of the Republic of Kosovo.

Random summary:

In the review session, held on July 2nd 2021, the Court reviewed the case of K88/21, respectively, the president's request of the Republic of Kosovo (i) “interpretation of the notion “parliamentary group” in the context of dividing the countries in the CEC for parliamentary groups represented in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Republic of Kosovo, in the sense of Article 139, paragraph 4 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo; and (ii) “for resolutions of the parliamentary groups proposed for the KQ-4>

The court notes that based on the facts of this case, it is found that (i) on April 22, 2021, the president of the Republic had submitted a request to parliamentary groups for nominating candidates for CEC members; and (i) between April 29th 2021 and May 12, 2021, parliamentary groups represented in the Parliament, which have no right to participate in the division of guaranteed seats, respectively, LVV, PDK, LDK and AAK, had proposed the respective members, while political subjects which hold guaranteed seats for the communities that have not delivered to Kosovo, as well as a majority.

The president of the Republic of Kosovo, on 12 May 2021, has appointed eight (8) members of the CEC. Two (2) other members were not appointed by the president of the Republic of Kosovo because (i) LVV has proposed three (3) candidates for CEC members, while The PDK has proposed two (2) candidates for members of the CEC, and claiming “acre” in context of Article 139 of the Constitution that determines that “if there are fewer groups, larger groups or groups can name additional members”, the president of the Republic of Kosovo has addressed the Court with a request for interpretation of the “the largest parliamentary group (4)x5> in the context of the upper term, respectively if the CQ countries only meet the largest parliamentary group; and the Serb community, where the current structure represented by the three parties in the country, (3), while the KQ is being handed over to the country in the same position in the same position. Consequently, the president of the Republic also claims “the pragmatti” in context of Article 4 of Article 139 of the Constitution, in terms of the appointment of CEC members from the ranks of communities that are not majority, in cases where a community is represented by more political subjects, but with equal numbers of seats in the Parliament.

In the context of the above circumstances and stressing that “the injustice of the competencies is imperceptible to the President that you appoint all members of the CEC, as a organ that manages and manages free, equal and direct elections in Kosovo”, the president of the Republic of Kosovo has addressed the Constitutional Court (i) with the application for the interpretation of the notion of the largest “parliamentary group” in context of paragraphs 4 of the Constitution, based on paragraph 9 of the 84; and the resolution of the <4> the resolution of the parliamentary groups, based on the 313th C.

(i) In terms of absorption in context of Article 9 of the Constitution

In the assessment of the President's application for interpretation of constitutional qualms based on paragraph 9 of Article 84 of the Constitution and the corresponding application for the answer to four (4) questions posed before the Court and which will be reflected in the overall arrangement for impunity that will be published in accordance with procedural rules in the coming days, the Court found that the President's request is unacceptable. The court through its judicial practice, including the case of KO79/18, in which also a request of the Republic President for interpretation of Article 4 of Article 139 of the Constitution has clarified that (i) paragraph 9 of Article 84 of the Constitution is not independent of Article 113 of the Constitution; (i) paragraph 9 of Article 84 and Article 1 of the Constitution cannot be interpreted outside the context of the constitution; and (based) on the constitution, the option of the Court is to receive advice from the article 112 of the constitution in response, because it is going to establish a key role.

(i) In terms of the context of the point (1) paragraph 3 of Article 113 of the Constitution

In a review of the President's application, based on Article 3 of Article 113 of the Constitution, in terms of resolving the conflict of “authorisations” between the constitutional “=x3> of the President and “the parliamentary groups represented in the Assembly” for the nominating of KEC members, the Court initially stressed that we upper the Constitution that the President of the Republic of Kosovo is authorized by three parties of the parliamentary groups that raises the <6th> in the constitutional competencies of Kosovo's Parliamentary Republic of Kosovo, KOHRCHCHCHB). This provision is interpreted by the Court through rulings in the KO131/18 cases and kohën181/18, clarifying the three constitutional quantum criteria that must be met so that the requirements raised under this article pass the implementation test. In the upper cases, the Court had clarified that, in the sense of Article 113.3.BAR1) of the Constitution, the following three criteria must be met: (i) the conflict raised by one of the three authorised sides; (ii) the conflict raised for the “constitutional location of the Parliament, the president and/or the Government of the Republic of Kosovo; and that (ii) have a conflict.

The court estimated that the first constitutional criteria have been met under the circumstances of this case because the request has been submitted to the Court by the president of the Republic of Kosovo, as one of the three authorised sides. However, the Court found that the second constitutional criterion in the context of Article 113.3.com1) of the Constitution has not been fulfilled, because, as the Court has clarified in cases of KO131/18 and KO181/18, the alleged conflict must stem from constitutional competencies defined for authorised parties. In the circumstances of the concrete case, in contrast to the provisions 84 (26), 139 (3) and 139 (4) of the Constitution, which define the constitutional competence of the President for the appointment of the CEC Chief of State and the manner of appointing its members, the President's competence for the appointment of CEC members is not defined by the Constitution, but only with the Law for General Elections in the Republic of Kosovo, respectively (a) with the point (a) of paragraph 3 of his Article 61.

Consequently, in the court's assessment, under the concrete circumstances of the Constitution, the president of the Republic has not filed a conflict with “Constitutional Co-operation”, according to the definitions of Article 113.3.T.1) of the Constitution, and as a result, the Court announced the request of the President of the Kosovo Republic unacceptable based on Article 113 of the Constitution and refused the requirement for appointment of the provisional measure based on Article 27 of the Constitutional Court.