IKD sues KPM: Change of Order and Chairmanly Choice Began

Through this indictment, the IKD requires the declaration of lawlessness and the abolition of paragraph 2 of Article 3 of the Independent Media Commission's Work Department, which paragraph was added to this regulation in the KPM meeting held on January 17th.

Also, The IKD requires that the decision to elect the KPM chairman, taken at that same meeting, after completing/changing the regulation, be declared illegal, reports “Justice Vought”.

Otherwise, as for changing regulations, The KPM at that meeting has added a paragraph (2) to Article 3 through which the election of the new KPM chairman was defeated, while still in the exercise of KPM chairmanship, whose mandate expired on January 21st 2025.

Concretically, the added paragraph determines that “Except for paragraph 1 of this article the mayor's election, respectively, can take place within (1) months before the chairman's mandate is expired, respectively, the deputy chair, especially to ensure that the KPM does not remain without chairman, respectively, in the case when there is no quorum left for their election.”.

And in this lawsuit, The IKD considers this provision illegal, arbitraryly imposed and in violation of legal procedures.

Furthermore, the indictment notes that the illegal change of this regulation deficit has produced other illegal consequences, through which it has come to the illegal election of the new KPM chairman.

“Despite clear legal provisions, in the concrete case, the new KPM chairman, at the January 17th 2025 meeting, has been elected, while still in the exercise of KPM chairmanship, whose mandate expired on January 21st 2025”, said away in this indictment.

In the meantime, as for the legal basis, the indictment is said to be just Law No. 04/L-44 for the Independent Media Commission, on which conflicted regulation has been issued, in its Article 8 it has defined the obligation to develop public consultations in cases of adoption of illegal acts.

On the other hand, the indictment stresses that on the same note, paragraph 2 also sets the deadline of at least 15 days of work, which the public and interested parties should be able to comment on.

It is said of him not to be aught but a promise binding on Him. The KPM at the meeting, held on January 17th 2024, has proposed the same day and has also adopted the controversial rule of conduct without conducting any public consultation.

Under this indictment, the manner of acting of KPM members, where it is set for meeting the regulation, by adding a provision to the Order within the same day and in the absence of public consultations and specific deadlines, clearly constitutes violations of the KPM law.

The indictment stresses that under the Law for the KPM, there is only one legal moment when the KPM chairman can be elected -- at the first meeting after the chairman's mandate ends. While, it is said that outside of that, the Law in question does not know the next moment when the new KPM chairman can be elected.

In this regard, the indictment highlights Article 11 of the KPM Law, which defines KPM work procedures.

Concretically, the indictment highlights paragraph which stipulates that “At the first round of KPM members with a simple majority of votes, he chooses his chairman and deputy chairman from the turn of KPM members, if at least two-thirds (2/3) of KPM members are present at the first meeting.

Under this indictment, this legal provision clearly defines the president's election and deputy chairman for each time it is to be resolved.

“This is not the arrangement that applies only to the first time the institution was established. Because if that were the case, then this provision would be placed in the transitional provisions of basic law and not as an integral part of the sublegal act, namely, regulation attached to this indictment.”, said away in the indictment.

Until, when the contents of the Book are recited, “in the first meeting after their lack”, that legally electing the new KPM chairman could take place only after the current president's mandate is completed.

Regarding the election of the new KPM chairman, at the January 17th 2025 meeting, the indictment is said to have been done based on the accepted order and contrary to the KPM Law.

“Thus, regulating through this indictment has also created an illegal decision. As such, in its entirety, the accepted verdict is arbitrary and completely illegal...”, says further in this indictment.

Also, the indictment says that despite the adoption of an illegal regulation that followed with an illegal decision, again, KPM remained dysfunctional.

Otherwise, on January 20th 2025, Pristina's chief Constitutional Prosecutor, Zejrullah Gashi, has confirmed to “the Justice Vow” that for developments in the January 17th meeting in the KPM, a prosecutor has been committed.