President's adviser criticises Constitution after refusing to accept Vjosa Osman's request

Murati made these comments by means of a post in his account at é Facebook, while commenting on the decision to reject Osman's demand for CEC seats.

What is at least explained by this ruling is that the Court handles only the requirements for competencies, which stem from the Constitution and not even those based on law. So that the pre-priced appointments and dismissals in law, not the constitution, are not cases that are handled by the court. Waiting for the publication of the full arrangement to analyze it as a whole”, it says, among other things.

“Moreover, this is showing the extreme degradation of language without argument, even though the president has acted with a high institutional conscience when addressed to the Court before taking action”, he declares.

His response to charges against Osman following The PDK, through a communique, accused him of political partiality.

President Osmani's present political behaviour is endangering democracy, political pluralism and the functioning of independent constitutional institutions. The PDK has long voiced concern that President Osmani and Prime Minister Kurti, through efforts at the Constitutional Court, are trying to deny a constitutional right. The PDK, like the second largest political party in the country”, was said in the PDK's response.

Complete Posting of Artan Murat:

The practice of the Constitutional Court for failing to address the constitutional issues raised by the head of state, defined according to Article 840) of the Constitution, is not taking into account the public interest in cases that were raised for interpretation before the Court. Through this provision, former President Jahjaga had sent the issue of the Serbian Communist Association to Constitution. You all know the public value of the Court interpretation in that case. Imagine how things could turn out if the court refused to give the interpretation of association - that is, if he used the practice that was recently used where all cases raised by the head of state are rejected based on the superior arrangement.

It is imperative that constitutional uncertainties be prevented as far as possible, offering solutions to the underlying problems. In this way the principle of judicial security would be guaranteed, and the possibilities for violating constitutional authorisations (due to different interpretations) on the part of institutions would be much smaller.

What is at least explained by this ruling is that the Court handles only the requirements for competencies, which stem from the Constitution and not even those based on law. So that the pre-priced appointments and dismissals in law, not the constitution, are not cases that are handled by the court. Waiting for a full arrangement publication to be analyzed as a whole.

Meanwhile, statements that if this request by the president to the court for interpretation of competencies is service to certain parties are groundless absurdities, which no rational person in Kosovo believes. Moreover, this is showing the extreme degradation of language without argument, even though the president acted with a high institutional conscience when addressed to the Court before taking action.