Supremee makes a decision, it's about funding veterans

The decision was taken following the indictment of the plaintiffs: L.S., N.Q., T.S., and S.M., filed against indictees, the Ministry of Finance, Labour and Transfers (MFPT)

Full announcement:

Pristina, October 28th 2025 The College of the Supreme Court has approved it as a basis for the prosecution's application: L.S., N.Q., T.S., and S.M., filed against indictee: The Ministry of Finance, Labour and Transfers (MFPT), and has declared it illegal and abolished Article 14.A, par.1, subpar.5 of the Administration Guides No. 012025 (MPMS) for the Change and Fulfillment of Administration Leadership No.06/2012 for Appliance Procedures at the Kosovo Liberation Army, Families and Determines defined in the Law No.04th/054th for the Status and the Rights of Witnesses, Indecisives, Members of the Kosovo Liberations, Families, Families, Families, Families, Families, and Europeans, UNPEVEvicals, UNPEvicals, UNPEVIdentates, UNPEvicates, UNPEVEVEVEVEVORS, UNPEVIRS, UNPEdentates for the Individuals, Individuals for the Individuals for the Individuals of Warrectors, Individuals, Individuals, Individuals, Individuals.

 The Supreme Court, during the review of the Law on the status and rights of martyrs, disabled, veterans, members of the Kosovo Liberation Army and members of their families, has estimated that with the recent amendments and compliances of the law, an uncertainty and judicial confusion has been created in relation to existing or not working relationship as criteria for the benefit of the legal right of financial compensation.

In analysis of the contents of the changed provisions, the Court finds that reshaping the basic article has created uncertainty about whether this right belongs only to those employed in the private sector or even to those employed in the public sector. In this direction, the Court has interpreted Article 16A, paragraph 5 of the amended law, which stipulates that “KLA war countries working outside institutions paid by the budget of the Republic of Kosovo, as well as outside public enterprises, will enjoy uniformly up to 50% of the previous amount, but will not, in total, exceed 0.7% of local production. ”

From the interpretation of this provision, the Court estimates that the lawgiver has wanted to rule out the benefits of compensation only to those employed in institutions that are financed from the budget of the Republic of Kosovo or to public enterprises, while those employed outside the public sector, respectively, enjoy the right to compensation in line with the legal limits.

Therefore, the right to benefit from this legal category depends, not on the existence of the labour relationship in general, but on the nature of the employer and the source of wage financing ʹ, whether that resource is the state budget.

In this context, the Court estimates that the Ministry's request for the presentation of the document issued by the Kosovo Tax Administration (ATK), defined in the contestary directive that proves veteran “is not in working relations”, as a condition for the profit of compensation, is contrary to the new legal regulation.

Hence, the Supreme Court estimates that the sublaw or administrative instruction that requires such confirmation in the present form should be abolished or harmonised with the content of the amended law in order to ensure the vertical compatibility of judicial acts and ensure fair and uniform implementation of the law.

In the conclusion, the Court finds that definition “is not in working relationship” conflicts with the new legal regulation envisioned in Article 16A, paragraph 5 of the Law, and for this reason, it cannot serve as legal criteria for limiting KLA veterans' right to financial gain, as long as they are not paid from the budget of the Republic of Kosovo.

With law entry into force, No. 05 L-141, the ministry has been obliged to harmonise administrative guidelines with legal changes. No changes to Administrative Guide No. 012015, despite amendments to the law that took place later in 2017 respectively, and the enforcement of the provision by Article 14.A, paragraph 1.5 of the 2015 Conflicting Guide, conflicts with the law violates judicial security and creates uncertainty about legally guaranteed rights.

The line of decision PA.nr.14/2024: https://supreme.gorys-rks.org/wp-content/unloads/verdicts/SUP 14 2025 SQ.pdf