Hasani: Ousmane's request, correct to address Constitution for clarification

Hasan, currently professor of Law and International Relations at the University of Pristina, said the Constitutional Court is expected to make decisions on this issue on the basis of requests submitted by MPs from the two political parties, rather than on the request of the president, follows. Periscope.

The question moves only when there is a clarity from the Constitutional Court regarding the legal consequences of non-compliance of the Parliament, and the first party's right to propose”.

According to him, the constitution after the deadline expired does not automatically make it unconstitutional. Only the Constitutional Court, he said, has the right to determine the constitutionality of such a process.

President Osmani addressed the Constitutional Court on July 22nd, with a request for clarification of what the legal consequences will be if the Assembly is not constitutionalised until July 26th, the deadline set earlier by the Constitution itself. It has also called for the deployment of a temporary measure for the suspension of a 30-day deadline.

The Parliament's elected deputies on Friday will gather for the 52nd time to constitutionalise the Kosovo Assembly.

Radio Free Europe: Professor Hasani, do you expect the Constitutional Court to approve Kosovo President Vjosa Osmani's request for the deployment of the provisional measure concerning the 30-day term for the constitution?

Enver Hasani: No, because Mrs. Osmani's request is unacceptable, because it is clearly unequipped, and the provisional measure is applied only when the basic demand is merited. When she is, at first glance, as is the case, clearly unfounded, then the Court declares her unacceptable.

That basic request by the president is absurd, since it says it is a conflict for competence, which does not exist, absolutely cannot exist. There is no positive conflict, no negative, for competence. Neither is anyone exercising the powers of the president, nor is the president abstaining from their exercise.

Radio Free Europe: Do you expect the Constitutional Court to consider Osman's request regarding the clarifications of what legal consequences may be in case the 26 July deadline for the constitution is not respected?

Enver Hasani: Absolutely not. I don't believe there's no right for the president to address the Constitutional Court for Conflicts of Existence and for clarification of the Constitutional Court's Court Act.

Radio Free Europe: What legal consequences do you expect the Constitutional Court to decide or will not decide at all?

Enver Hasani: The Constitutional Court, in the latest indictment, has made a mistake that has not determined judicial consequences. I've been thinking, and I continue to think, that the 30-day term is the discovery of the Constitutional Court, because the Constitution is clear, it sets the 30-day deadline for the constitution, for that it is clear.

The court could use what was called preparation work, which I know doesn't exist, but five or six years ago we allegedly found them, and I'm convinced that those preparations would also mean that the 30-day deadline is not a deadline, but it's a deadline to start sessions, but not even for conversion.

Since he has appointed it, he should also set the consequences for noncompliance. That is not what the Court has done, so it is a preliminary duty of the Court, on the basis of demands that are ongoing by MPs of the two political forces, to decide on the legal consequences of failing to implement its latest act of judgment.

Radio Free Europe: So you don't expect the Court to decide on the request of the president, but on the request the deputies made?

Enver Hasani: Yes, because the Court has no right to make it acceptable. I repeat, the president's request is clearly unfounded and therefore unacceptable.

The court can take temporary measures even ex officio, not only on the request of the parties, in this case I am referring to MPs.

And, following the deployment to the two demands of political forces -- respectively, deputies, the Constitutional Court -- I am very sure -- will clarify the legal consequences of the recent act of justice, what happens if the constitutionalisation occurs after July 27th, after the 30-day deadline passed.

Because, not only our Constitutional Court, but other courts, it is standard that they set the way to execute their decisions, the timing of their execution, and manage the judicial consequences of their decisions.

So, the Court can even show if it is formed after the 30-day term is passed, it has the right to show what the legal consequences are, can be continued or not continued. And, that's what he's done, you know, in some act of judgment, even in the time I was mayor, and recently, like the case “Hoti” and many others.

Because, I repeat, it is the Constitutional Court's right to determine the way, time and manage the legal consequences of its judgments.

Radio Free Europe: Professor Hasan, if MPs eventually substitute the Parliament after the term set by the Constitution, what does that mean, will the constitution be constitutionalised?

Enver Hasani: No, it doesn't mean that if it's unconstitutional, only the Constitutional Court shows, because, in its final act, it hasn't shown the legal consequences, but it's just given a deadline, redefined it, changed the Constitution, changed the 30-day term, which is the start of the session, and said it's equal to the constitution. But no legal consequences have been established.

MPs and organs will operate, will continue even after July 27th. Hypothetically, if nothing happens, they must continue with the 48 hour because they have a regulation, they have a Constitution that is in effect, a constitutional standard.

Afterwards, the Constitutional Court -- if the Assembly is constitutionalised and the case goes into Constitutional, or in the meantime -- provides answers to MPs' demands, it appoints the destiny or legal consequence of the constitutional framework after the 30-day term is passed.

Only the Constitutional Court, and no one else, determines what the constitutional and what is not constitutional.

Radio Free Europe: In the meantime, if the constitution is reached, will the president be able to refuse the mandate of forming the Government, pending a decision or clarification by the Constitution?

Enver Hasani: No, absolutely not, because it has no stop, and the president is not an interpreter of the Constitution. It has to do the mandate, it has the constitutional deadline, it is constitutionalised to the Parliament, it must immediately appoint the mandate and form organs.

Whenever it decides, the Constitutional Court will show the legal consequences, as it has shown, you know, in the case “Pacolli”. He is not considered a dismissed president, but an unconstitutional president. But the president's decisions have remained because he has accepted credentials, appointed ambassadors, and they cannot be taken for granted, which means that the Constitutional Court manages the judicial consequences eventually, but does not dare the state to stop.

The Assembly should be held if agreement is reached, even after the 30-day deadline. The mandate must take place even after that time, and only the Constitutional Court determines the legal consequences of such a dedication and such a mandate. Nobody else.

Radio Free Europe: So if the government is voted, it'll be constitutional?

Enver Hasani: Yes, until the Constitutional Court says otherwise.

Radio Free Europe: Professor Hasan, what if the dedication is not achieved within this 30-day term, even after an assessment or clarification that the Constitutional Court can give? Is it about losing the mandates of current MPs, or is it replaced by other MPs within the list?

Enver Hasani: This can only happen if the Constitutional Court considers the decedentification of MPs, either part of them or all, a legal consequence.

Only the Constitutional Court is what you could lose the mandate, and make the decetification of Kosovo Parliamentary deputies, and one with a certain reason why it happens. So that's a legal consequence.

The legal consequences, for today, have not been determined by the Court for the final act. It is expected that the Court will determine the legal consequences of its failure to comply with its trial within the 30-day term. Nobody else. In a word, there is no loss of mandate with automatism. The Constitutional Court decides that.

Radio Free Europe: Professor, what are you waiting for? What can the judges' decisions be?

Enver Hasani: I can't speculate. But, what I expect, I want to hope very much, that the Court will know how to preserve its professional dignity, to be strongly based on the last act of judgment, to operate the operational part, on the basis of the reasoning it has rendered in the final act.

Because even the demands of the two parties are and are based on the final act, and there is no logic, and it would be very bad for the Court, if it were to deviate from its reasoning in the final act.

What I believe and hope is that the Constitutional Court will determine the legal consequences of failing to comply with the bias, based on the final reasoning given on the issue initiated by the Alliance for the Future of Kosovo.