Hasani: Professional Court ruling, Osman decree was completely unconstitutional

The international law professor in an interview for Kosova Press, points out that, although the judicial reasoning of the decision is correct, the language used in the device “reflects some hesitation” of the Court to directly label the situation as Osman's constitutional decision, as it says because of the fear and pressure done to this institution.

However, it explains that the bias does not produce direct legal consequences for the president, since the screening object has only been the constitutionality of the decree and not its personal responsibility.

When a legal act does not produce any legal effect, then it is about absolute worthlessness of the act. This is another appointment to say that the decree has been completely anti-unconstitutional”, Hasani says.

He adds that this findings make the decree for the distribution of the judicial Convention invalid, “as if it hadn't existed at all”, citing this as the highest degree of constitutionality.

In this context, Hasani considers Vjosa Osmani wrong with the decision to distribute the Assembly, since such competence, according to him, does not exist in any European parliamentary system as autonomous competence of the head of state.

The “Object of the case has not been an assessment of whether the president has violated the Constitution, but if the decree is constitutional”, Hasani adds.

According to him, any eventual procedure against the president should be initiated separately by at least 40 deputies in the Constitutional Court, who should argue violations of the Constitution, even relying on this act.

Hasani also stresses that such a procedure is divided by the president's dismissal issue, which requires two-thirds majority in the Assembly, making this a politically complicated process.

This is a full interview:

How do you assess the Constitutional Court's decision to give the Assembly an additional 34 days to elect the president? Is this interpretation in full harmony with the spirit of the Constitution?

Hasani: The bias is professional in the reasoning part, but there is a language in the device that, in all, resembles the device of last year's first act of judgment for the constitution. This language is clear to constitutional lawyers, but it reflects a certain reluctance by the Constitutional Court to directly label the phenomenon described. I don't blame them at all, considering that they were under pressure last year, that part of the judges were also exposed to physical danger.

Hasani: Yeah. The argument is correct and clearly shows that, in a parliamentary system, the head of state (president or monarch) cannot distribute parliament autonomously and out of constitutional authorisation. For this reason, the Court has noted that the Republic President's decree on the distribution of the Assembly has produced no legal effect. When a legal act produces no legal effect, then it's about absolute worthlessness of the act. This is another designation to say that the decree has been completely unconstitutional. That is not what the Court said because of the fear and pressure he had last year and on other occasions.

The court has found that the president's decree on the distribution of the Assembly does not produce a legal effect. How consistent is such reasoning in a practical way?

Hasani: As I said, it's about describing a legal act as completely unconstitutional, since it has produced no legal consequences. So the decree to distribute the Kosovo Assembly is completely invalid, as if it had never existed. This is the highest degree of constitutionality and includes provisions of the Constitution mentioned in paragraph 4 of the act on the subject.

Has there been constitutional space for the president to act differently in this situation? What legal and constitutional consequences could she have after this unconstitutional decision?

Hasani: Of course, the president of the Republic was mistaken when he distributed the assembly, since he distributed the sovereign representative. This right is nowhere in the republic's president in a parliamentary system, and that is what the Court has clearly said in the reasoning part, when it has provided comparison constitutional solutions. Same as in Kosovo, in any European constitution that has the parliamentary system, the head of state has no autonomous competencies for the distribution of parliament.

No consequence could be had for Mrs. Osmani, because the object of the case has been an assessment whether the president of the Republic of Kosovo has violated the Constitution, but if the decree of the president of the Republic of Kosovo for the distribution of the Kosovo Assembly is constitutional in itself. This, in fact, is the very title of today's act: “assessment of the Constitution of the Decree [inn. The March 6th 2026th President of the Republic of Kosovo”.

If anyone thinks Ms. Osmani has violated the Constitution of Kosovo, it could launch procedures before the Constitutional Court under Article 9.2, concerning Article 113.6 of the Kosovo Constitution. In such a procedure, today's act serves as a fact and the initiative side should reason correctly why and how Mrs. Osmani has violated the Constitution of Kosovo. So, in other words, the side that launches such a procedure has to argue constitutional violations that have been subject to reviewing today's act.

The deadline for deciding whether President Osmani has violated the Constitution is seven days old and has no connection if it ends the mandate. Under the Law for the Constitutional Court and Standard Practice in European Constitutional Court, courts have the right to continue the procedure even when the screening object falls, for whatever reason.

The dismissal of the president of the Republic, according to Article 91.3 of the Constitution, is quite another matter. In other words, the process for assessment whether President Osmani has violated the Constitution of Kosovo is divided by the outcome of its post, because the dismissal -- even in the event of an active president -- may not happen in the Kosovo Assembly, since the majority of two-thirds of MPs are required. If this procedure is to be launched, it remains in the assessment of political actors. /Periscope