The Supreme Court rejects complaints filed against PZAP rulings

The Supreme Court has ruled on the six administrative complaints filed against the election panel's decisions on Ances and Parashtre (PZAP).

All complaints have been dismissed as groundless.

By Prejudice AA.nr.6/2026The court has rejected the political subject's complaint, the United Roma Party of Kosovo (PREBK), submitted against the PZAP decision.

The United Roma Party of Kosovo (PREBK), in the legal term, has filed a complaint with the Supreme Court, with which it disputes the general results of early elections, with the claim that the count of all votes at the country's level of KKN has testified to irregularities and proposes that the Supreme Court finds serious violations of the election process.

The Supreme Court generally acknowledges as fair and based PZAP's legal stance, praising that no complaint stands against the complainer that the votes are in full disproportion with the real number of residents in the Roma community, as political representation of the Roma community has been secured with the votes of other communities.

By Prejudice AA.nr. 72026, Court has rejected the Coalition's complaint as unfounded P Al-PAK-LPB, presented against the PZAP decision.

Coalition PAI- PAK-LPB, in complaint, proposes that the Supreme Court abolish PZAP's decision, no. ZP.A.A.77/2026, and return the case for re-evaluation with the direction for full, independent and transparent recounting of all votes.

The Supreme Court praised the legality of the controversial decision, in terms of complaints, responses in complaints, and after reviewing even the subject papers, found that the complaint is unfounded. This is about the fact that the complainer, with no single evidence has managed to prove there have been violations or irregularities, respectively.

By Prejudice A.A.r.8/2026, The Court has rejected Emily Rexhepi's complaint from the ranks of political subject Nova Democraticska Stranka (NDS), headquartered in Prizren, while the decision was made. PZAP has been proven.

The complainer has filed complaints with the Supreme Court, proposing a change of decision PZAP's, so that 85 votes counted for the political subject “Calicija Vacat” at the No. 2034 Veles, within the framework of the calculated mandate reserved for the Bosniak community and commanded the CEC to correct the outcome of the elections.

The Supreme Court estimates that unsupported claims with concrete evidence cannot serve as the basis for such an extreme measure as the annulment of votes, as this would affect judicial security and citizens' trust in the election process. Accepting such a standard would create a dangerous precedent, where the election outcome could be questioned simply on perceptions or subjective assumptions.

In this sense, only clearly proven violations and directly influenced the election outcome can justify interference in the outcome of the vote, while simply the fact that voters belong to or not to a certain minority does not, in itself, constitute legal basis for annulment of votes.

The European Court of Human Rights's jurisdiction has stressed that any restrictions on the right to vote should be envisioned by law, pursue a legitimate and proportional purpose. The annulment of votes on ethnic grounds does not meet any of these criteria.

By Prejudice A.A.r.9/2026, Court has rejected political subject Nova Democraticska Stranka's complaint with headquarters in Prizren, while ruling in Prizren PZAP has been proven.

Political subject Nova Democraticska Stranka with headquarters in Prizren has filed a complaint with the Supreme Court proposing that votes be annulled for the political subject “Za Slobodu, Pravdu of Opstanak” under the account for the reserved mandate of the Bosnian community at these locations in Prizren's municipality: and commanded the CEC to correct the final outcome of the December 28th 2025 elections, excluding from accounting for the reserve mandate of the Bosnian vote, mentioned in the complaint, and <2th) the integrity of communities in non-resurging and electoral standards.

The Supreme Court recognises as all fair and based PZAP's judicial position, praising that the annulment of votes cannot rely solely on general claims that candidates have received votes from voters who do not belong to the respective minority. Such an approach conflicts with fundamental principles of voting rights, such as free, secret and equal votes. Election law does not condition the validity of the vote with the ethnic belonging of voters, but with the fact that it is legally registered and has exercised its right in accordance with established procedures.

As a result, only proven, concrete and serious violations that violate the integrity of the election process may justify interference in the outcome of the vote. The claims on ethnic voter affiliation, in the absence of a legal ban and clear evidence, do not constitute constitutional or international grounds for annulment of votes.

By Prejudice AA.nr.10/2026, the Court has rejected as unequivocal the candidate's complaint for MP from political subject the Democratic Party of Kosovo (PDK), Bekim Hagiut, while the Election Panel's decision for Ances and Parashtre (PZAP), ZP.Arn.76/2026, has been confirmed.

Against PZAP's decision, the complainer has filed complaints with the Supreme Court, with the proposal that the ruling be annulled PZAP's and on the part of the separation of mandates for MPs on the basis of gender quotas, is to be commissioned, the CEC, to do correction or re-nouncing of final results.

The Supreme Court acknowledges PZAP's decision as fair and legitimate. Based on the legal provisions for gender equality in representation, the separation of mandates should respect the principle of minimum inclusion of 30% per gender, both in the phase of drafting candidate lists and in the final phase of the mandates' division. First, according to Article 28 paragraph 1 of the LPZ, quoted above, the candidate list of each political subject should contain at least 30% female and 30% men, as well as ensure regularly distributed gender representation, with one gender candidate in each group of three candidates. This rule aims not only at formal equality on the list but also at creating real conditions for this equality to be reflected in final representation.

Kosovo Supreme Court estimates that in concrete case, political subject The PDK has won 22 mandates, while calculating the 30% minimum gender quota on this number of mandates turns out to be 7 mandates that should belong to the minority gender and that, in concrete cases, has been met fairly by the CEC.

By Prejudice A.A.nr.11/2026, Court has rejected the candidate for MP from Political Subject (PDK)'s Democratic Party of Kosovo, headquartered in Pristina, Bekim Hadziu, while the decision was made. PZAP, ZP.Ar.75/2026, has been proven.

The complainer has filed a complaint with the Supreme Court, with the proposal stating that involvement in the election result of mail balloting after the set deadline with Article 96 paragraph 2 of Law No. 08/L-228 is contrary to the law, and the Central Election Commission is ordered to cancel all letters received by mail after the legal deadline.

The court estimates that the admission of these votes is made on the basis of a decision by the competent body, respectively, the Central Election Commission, which enjoys constitutional and legal authority for management, supervision and regulation of the election process. The CEC's decision, through which the admission of these votes has been legitimised, has produced full legal effects and has been in force at the moment of its implementation. This CEC decision has never been punished by any side of the interest, nor through pre-lawed legal means, nor within the appropriate procedure deadlines. Failure to exercise legal means against this decision implies his silent acceptance and complete consolidation of his legal power. In this context, any subsequent efforts to counter the consequences of such a decision, without previously contradicting the verdict itself, conflict with fundamental principles of judicial security, stability of the judicial order, and legitimate belief in the actions of public authorities.

Decision links:

https://supreme.gorys-rks.org/wp-content/unlods/verdicts/SUP SAA 20 6 2026 SQ.pdf

https://supreme.gister-rks.org/wp-content/unlods/verdicts/SUP SAA 20 7 2026 SQ.pdf

https://supreme.gorys-rks.org/wp-content/unlods/verdicts/SUP SAA 20 8 2026 SQ.pdf

https://supreme.gister-rks.org/wp-content/unlods/verdicts/SUP AAAP:%20 9 2026 SQ.pdf

https://supreme.gorys-rks.org/wp-content/unlods/verdicts/SUP SAA:%20 10 2026 SQ.pdf

https://supreme.gorys-rks.org/wp-content/unlods/verdicts/SUP SAA 20 11 2026 SQ.pdf