Thaci claims that the case against justice administration should be initiated by the court in war crimes case

The decision was made on June 19, 2025 by the judge of the preliminary procedure, Marjorie Masselot, who also dropped Thaci's claim that her assignment in the case had been in conflict with the Law.

According to the chronology of the procedures, on November 29, 2024, the indictment against Thaci, the Smajt Union, Isni Kilajt, Fadil Fazliu and Hajredin Kuci was partially confirmed for criminal acts against justice administration.

On February 12th 2025, the prosecution filed a complaint against the confirmed indictment, and on April 3rd the Court of Appeals decided that the case would be returned to the judge of the preliminary procedure for review.

On April 14, 2025, the court's initial procedure changed the verdict in line with Apel's decision and two days later hand it over. On May 8, 2025, Thaci's defence had submitted its motion on the matter.

In its motion, Thaci's defence has contested the competencies of the judge of the preliminary procedure to review his current case.

According to defence, these procedures such as this review and confirmation of the indictment fall into the jurisdiction of the court in the case of war crimes from which the case originated.

Also, Thaci claims that the judge of the preliminary procedure in this case has been appointed in opposition to the law after acting as the sole judge during the investigation into acts allegedly committed by Thaci and others.

The defence says the court in the war crimes case has the obligation to be fair, swift and to develop procedures by respecting the rights of the accused.

They say the court cannot fulfill this obligation if another panel is charged with issues involving managing its case.

The defense claims that the court in the war crimes case should have exclusive competence and responsibility on all aspects, including claims of contempt of the court and interference with witnesses.

“... so it was a task of the judicial panel II to oversee the investigation into alleged acts in the current case, to determine whether they justified an indictment and a particular case, and to decide whether another Panel should be charged”, the decision, which cites defence statements.

The defence also claims that current procedures have undermined the court's authority in the war crimes case to ensure fair judgment in that case.

The court's “Trug has been deprived of the possibility of preventing and handling witness intervention claims; (ii) any decision to be made by the Court II on evidence provided by witnesses from the 06th case, which SPS claims are influenced ) risks violating the presumption of Mr. Thaci and prejudge the outcome of the current issue; (ii) capacity, time and means available to Mr. Thaci for preparing defence on the 06th issue has been significantly influenced by current procedures; and (iv) Court II cannot guarantee Mr. Thaci as a detainee, since he is currently subject to a separate detention regime under current procedures”, Thaci's defence was quoted as setting out.

Thaci's defence has also argued that the only judge can act only when no court is charged to manage claims of interference in the war crimes case. In their view, there was a certain jury in this case.

“Chamber Speaker gave the judge only a permanent “mandate on investigative issues, a role not predicted by Law or Order, which instead predicts that each assignment should be temporary; and (ii) The head appointed as the Pre-Procedure Court in all cases the same two judges who had previously acted as the Only Judge, contrary to Article 33 (1) (a) and (4) of the Law, which predicts that a judge could not be appointed to successive roles within the same case”, was quoted as setting forth Thaci's defense.

As a result, Thaci's defence has said the amended indictment is invalid and should be rejected due to lack of jurisdiction, given the fact that it is acting outside the competencies.

However, the prosecution has responded that this motion should be dismissed as a whole, since it has no legal basis and raises unacceptable cases.

The prosecution claims Thaci's arguments to the court's competencies in the war crimes case conflict with the Law and the Order.

According to them, the authority to conduct investigations and establish the indictment belongs solely Z The SP and that Thaci's defence is ignoring the applicable law before DPSC, trying to bring rules used by other courts.

“ ... Court Chambers II's claims to manage the procedures at Court 06 do not lie in other procedures involving various and various accused charges; (vi) Article 335) of the Law effectively prohibits the involvement of judges of the Court II in some criminal procedure stemming from the violations of Article 15] the Law; and (vi) Thaci's defence statements that the body II has been obstructed in implementing measures against his violations, that his authority has been undermined or marginalised, and that it cannot guarantee a more fair trial of 06, the former court has been quoted before the prosecution.

The prosecution also claims that the fact that the single judge's appointment was made for a permanent mandate is wrong, unsupported and incorrect.

“...if Thaci's defense wanted to counter the appointment of the Single Court and just like the Pre-Procedure Procedure Court, it should have submitted a request for exemption according to Rule 20 before the mayor; (v) the appointment of the Pre-Procedure Court is in line with the Article 33y4) of the Law; and (vi) there is no principled reason to separate the Court of Procedure from cases it has ruled as Court of the 318x>, which the prosecutor cites.

In its ruling, the judge of the preliminary procedure has said that establishing an indictment and launching procedures against a person is the prosecutor's exclusive right and is subject only to the oversight of the judge of the preliminary procedure for confirmation or not of the charges, the Justice Accord reports.

According to her, no law or regulation gives the court authority to instruct the prosecutor to address the judge of the preliminary procedure with a new indictment.