Chocolate reacts to Dimal Basa: Last word on interpretation of the Constitution has Constitutional Court, not Parliamentary Speaker

The Constitutional Court has found that the election of Kosovo's deputy chairman from the Serb community's ranks, Nenad Rassic, from the ninth legislature, was contrary to the Constitution and the Parliament's Labour Rule.

The issue has been reacted to by KDI's Eugen Cakoli, who has said the bias reconfirms who proposes the Serb community's representative in the Parliament's Headship and as far as the Albanian majority's will lies in his election.

To this act of judgment, Dimal Basha has earlier reacted to the procedure as speaker of the Parliament, according to Basha, Rassic's election procedure was constitutional. So he rejected the Constitutional Court's verdict

For Cacol, that reaction from Basha is problematic, adding that it equates the absence with nonproposal, and on this basis it reasons the passage into lots.

Full call mail:

Today's Constitutional Court Act on Deputy Chairman of the Serb Community did not bring anything new, but deepened and clarified the logic of the preliminary decision. The indictment reconfirms who proposes the Serb community's representative to the Parliament's Headship and how far the will of the Albanian majority lies in his election.

In this context, I consider that the decision Speaker's response is problematic because he equates the absence with nonproposal and, on this basis, reasons the shift to lots. The court said otherwise. Serbian MPs refused to propose. They exploited all their rights by proposing nine candidates. The fact that these candidates did not receive parliamentary majority votes does not turn this into blockades by the community and automatically activate the imposing mechanism.

Even more disturbing is the mayor's effort to position himself as the final performance of the norms, calling in his role as ruleplayer during the session. This role is the instrument for managing procedure in the hall, and by no means immunity from constitutional control. If this logic were accepted, any violation of the provisions of the Constitution related to the Assembly could be justified simply as “interpretation of the regulation”, emptying the very role of the Constitutional Court.

This whole situation is not about one or two articles, but, above all, the principle of who has the final say in constitutional interpretation. And that word is not the chairman of the Parliament or any other institutional host, but exclusively of the Constitutional Court.

If each official begins to read the Constitution according to himself and proclaim himself more competent than the Court, then the constitutional order is replaced with interpretations in the present interest. /Periscopi/

Bassa likes the Constitutional decision on Rashih: Disconnected With the Constitution