Government complaint rejected, suspension of decision on judges, prosecutors salaries remains in force

The Kosovo Court of Appeals has confirmed the Constitutional Court's decision in Pristina é Department for Administrative Affairs for suspending the Kosovo Government's decision to cut salaries for judges and prosecutors.

According to the ruling, the Court of Appeals on January 20th of this year has decided that the government's complaint of the Republic of Kosovo will be rejected as unfounded.

The Government of the Republic of Kosovo government, headquartered in Pristina, while the Basic Court Act in Pristina ʹ the Department for Administrative Affairs, A.nr..., dated 02.12.22, proves”, says the Appeals' decision.

Otherwise, the Foundation Court in Pristina, the Department for Administration Affairs on December 2nd, 2022, had decided on the suspension of the Government's decision to cut the salaries of judges and prosecutors.

Against that decision in the legal term, the Government of the Republic of Kosovo, represented by the State Lawyers, has filed complaints against this decision in the legal term because of the wrong or not fair application of legal provisions, wrong and incomplete agreement of the actual situation and the wrong implementation of material rights.

The complaint in the legal term has submitted the Association of Prosecutors of Kosovo, with proposals that the indictee's complaint against the proposal, the Government of the Republic of Kosovo, which the State Lawyer of the Republic of Kosovo represents, be refused as groundless and that the first-degree decision be confirmed.

In response, according to Apel's decision, it reportedly found that the first-instance court after reviewing the prosecution's proposal ʹ proposal for the provision of the provision of the provisional move to postpone the execution of the indictee's decision has found that such a proposal is based, because the prosecution has provided credible evidence ʹ that proves the execution of the verdict would bring harm to the plaintiff who could not be repaired, and that such postponement is not in conflict with public interests.

The reason for this decision is said to be that the College of the Court of Appeals, based on such a state of affairs, generally recognises such a first-instance court conclusion, because even according to the court's assessment of the college, conditions for delaying the execution of the previous administrative act in Article 22 paragraph 2 of the Law for Administrative Conflicts have been outlined.

According to the College, by the above provision that the delay could be made: “with the request of the plaintiff, the organ whose act is executed, or the organ which is competent for execution, could postpone execution to the definite judicial verdict, if the execution brought harm to the plaintiff, who would be difficult to repair, while the postponement is not in conflict with public interest, nor the delay would bring any major damage to the opposing party, respectively, the interested person<1. And in the concrete case under this ruling, indicted by the exercised complaint, has called for the annulment of the first-degree court's decision, with the reasoning that the legitimacy of the party in the procedure has not been contested by the court, even though the 18th article of the KA, is taxing who might be the plaintiff in an administrative conflict, and according to this article does not meet the initial conditions for action in defence of public interest.

Regarding this college complaint, the court estimates that it is wrong and unconvincing to approve the complaint, for the fact that with the No.05L-031 Law, for the General Administration Procedure, the possibilities for expanding the legitimacy of parties in administrative procedure and with this, as well as in administrative conflict, as well as the subjects that represent and protect collective interest, and the broad public interest of similar associations and organisations among their objectives have collective interests.

According to the reasoning of this decision, this expansion of the legitimacy of the parties is envisioned with Article 14 paragraph 2 of Law No. 05 L- 031 for General Administrative Procedure.

This expansion of the legitimacy of the parties is envisioned with Article 14 paragraph 2 of Law No. 05 L- 031 For the General Administrative Procedure, with which the “is determined The parties in the administrative procedure are also and advocates of public interests authorised by special law, as well as advocates of collective interests or of the interests of the public, if these interests can be violated by the result of the administrative procedure”, the Appeals' reasoning said.

Apel's decision says that two new categories of interest -- collective interest and widespread public interest -- have been introduced to expand legitimacy even in subjects that for their rights and obligations are not directly put into concrete procedure. Similar

On the other hand, college has also decided on the claims of a complaining side in terms of conflict of interest, and according to college, this claim of the complaint is unstable.

“While in terms of complaining claims of indictees dealing with conflict of interest, that the first-degree court has acted in a conflict of interest situation, this court's college considers that claim to be unsupported in convincing arguments and that as such does not stand. This is due to the fact that with Article 69 of the Law on Competical Procedure Applying under Article 63 of the KA, the parties can only claim the exception of the judge who participates in the set procedure” is said to continue to reason on this decision.

Also, according to this decision, the complaining side's claim regarding conflict of interest is the claim contrary to constitutional and legal provisions, because under the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo it is presupposed that anyone who considers guaranteed rights with the Constitution in this fair salary case is entitled to the competent court.

Also, according to the first degree court ruling, it has concluded that, postponing the execution of the decision disputed with this indictment, is not in conflict with public interest, but that such a postponement contributes to the preservation of the unitary system and the normal functioning of justice institutions, in the service of the Republic of Kosovo Constitution and in the function of exercising state functions.

The above has added that, for the most part, general or public interest has not been marred by the fact that judges and prosecutors have accomplished the growing salaries since 2017, and this has not affected any financial crisis.

On the other hand, the College of This Court has praised other complaints, that the court of first degree has not reasoned the irreparable damage, and that the same does not justify the damage done to the opposing side. Then, because of the wrong application of the legal provisions, this shall be a whole requisite in the law.

According to the ruling, the College of This Court estimates that these claims are unconfirmed and unconfirmed in concrete, insufficient and not convincing evidence to be approved for complaints.

So according to this decision, the court of the first fair degree has decided when it has approved it as based on the proposal to postpone the execution of the controversial decision, because this avoids possible consequences that would be caused in the future if the controversial decision of the indictee at the end of the judicial process turns out to be taken contrary to the law.

On the other hand, this ruling states that the College of the Court of Appeals without prejudice against the further ruling that will be issued by the Court of First Case for the prosecution's prosecution, estimates that the requirement for delaying the execution of the contested verdict must be approved as based, since the regular functioning of justice institutions is general interest.

Therefore, the College of the Court of Appeals has correctly assessed that over this state of fact, it has found that the Constitutional Court in Pristina - The Department for Administrative Affairs has correctly confirmed the actual and correct state of the procedure and material provisions that the law was not violated at the expense of the indictment in the case of approval of the proposal to postpone the execution of the controversial verdict.

November 29, the Constitutional Court in Pristina had accepted the indictment by the Kosovo Prosecutors' Association towards the Government of Kosovo, following the decision made by the latter for lowering salaries against judges and prosecutors.

According to the report, the court has taken the decision with which it has approved the prosecution's proposal, the Kosovo Prosecutors' Association, as based and has postponed the execution of the 03/109 verdict of the indictment's 23.11.2022, Government of the Republic of Kosovo, the Office of the Prime Minister, until the court decides with a final judicial ruling, in terms of the indictment's prosecution's request.

In response to the Government's decision to cut salaries, the Kosovo Judiciary Council (KGJK), as well as the Kosovo Prosecutorial Council (KPK), had reduced work in courts and prosecutors.

In this government decision, civil society had also reacted, calling wage reductions in the justice system, justice intervention and increased corrupt potential. /Betimy for Justice