“Confrontation for the State Bureau for Verification and Confiscating of Riches

Justice Minister Donika Grovalla said this bill aims to boost citizens' trust in justice and strengthen mechanisms against unwarranted property, stressing it is in line with international standards and relevant institutions' recommendations.

It will increase citizens' access and confidence in justice. The state bureau for verification and seizure of unwarranted property is a vital mechanism, is the main instrument to ensure that public officials' assets are verifiable and in line with legal revenues. In addition to ensuring that the wealth created in exchange with legal income will be confiscated and returned to the state, the law also contributes to the removal of doubts about assets and officials, who have created such assets in legal ways”, she said.

She added that the bill has gone through three opinions of the Venice Commission and two reviews of Kosovo's Constitutional Court, stressing that civil seizure has been confirmed as legal instrument.

“During this process, the law has gone through three opinions of the Venice Commission and two reviews of the Constitutional Court. None of these institutions and mechanisms have contested the concept of civil seizure as legitimate instruments. Rather, they have confirmed civil-based seizure by recommending improvements in clarity, proportionality and procedural guarantees.

All of this has already been reflected in the text you have before you and which has also been confirmed with the editorial opinion of the Venice Commission”, she said.

The chairman of the Commission for Legislation, Progress Gruda, raised concerns about the lack of public consultation and the length of the law.

If the court has turned it to zero, that means the law starts from zero, requires public consultation and all. I think it's a mistake we haven't had public consultation in the pre-government phase. The second issue I wanted to mention is the question of the length of the law. Which is a very long period I think even the Constitutional Court has said in the first decision that can be problematic, because there are a lot of laws in Kosovo that regulate document preservation. I agree with what the minister said, that civil seizure is also considered by the Venice Commission a standard is possible to be applied, but I think that considering the country's specifics is necessary, because it is a new country even institutions and laws, documents that at the initial stage where I think this aspect is essentially important when we have this”, he said.

Asked about the lack of public consultation, Gervala said such a thing was not considered necessary in this phase.

“We have received recommendation from the legal department to us, but also from the ZKM that there is no need for a series of public discussion”, she said.

VV deputy Fargan Qorrolli backed the bill, naming it necessary for the institutional system and in line with constitutional and international standards.

He listed six criteria that, according to him, the bill meets, including addressing Constitutional Court decisions, proportionality, legal guarantees and judicial clarity.

Because I have been a part of the Ministry of Justice myself, I consider that this law, in addition to proper treatment and professional power, has also had a contribution to all actors, and in this case we should always appreciate the contribution of the people who have worked on this law, because I said it is vitally valuable to our institutional architecture. I have six thesis that I believe should be in spirit such a law to be passed if they meet this standard of the Constitutional Court itself, but above all of the Venice Commission, and above all of the European Convention on Human Rights and Freedoms, in terms of Strasbourg's jurisdiction”, he said.

The first “whether the current bill we have before us addresses the main findings of both Constitutional Court judgments, with particular emphasis on the first act. And if the second one has legitimate purpose and is proportional.

The third if the bill above all offers sufficient legal guarantees for the protection of individual rights. The fourth if this law provides clarity and predictability in a sense of judicial security. The fifth impact of procedural deadlines on the efficiency of the judicial system.

And the sixth combination of the Bureau's competencies with existing institutions in the Republic of Kosovo. In my judgment, this law that all six conditions that I set up in the form of the themes, complements them, with special emphasis on the legitimate purpose and proportion of the law”, he said.

On the other hand, AAK deputy Besnik Tahiri stressed that the lack of public consultation and the risk of falling into the Constitutional Court remain serious concerns.

“Forcing the fight against corruption and reform in justice are two conditions to move this state forward. There are two problems I want to address: first, reforms in justice are subject to two fundamental principles, the principle of constitutionality and the principle of institutional accountability, which I think will be a major obstacle to this law. Public consultation of this law is vital and legal; The Ministry of Justice must submit to laws that impose public consultation. The second issue we have a decision on the Constitution that is in a preliminary case, which clearly says that public consultation is mandatory and is important. I find the process of consulting important, if there is serious and final confrontation for citizens. Do not create instruments that could collapse at the Constitutional Court”, he said.

While PDK deputy Blerta Deliu criticised the accelerated procedure and lack of full treatment of the Constitutional Court findings.

While we are talking today about a new bill, with some cosmetic changes, which has not addressed all the findings of the Constitutional Court. That's what civil society representatives who have been criticising the government for its approach have said in the past days, because the first of these were not followed in the regular procedures seen with the Parliament's work regulations? Why should the same one come to the Convention with accelerated procedure? So we're going to have to vote in the country for a change of procedures, while we've been able to address the same law with regular deadlines, undergoing regular public discussion, where civil society would be present and of course we would discuss it in detail. The first Mrs. Minister, as MP, I want to ask you not to use the same mandate, because it is not today a tendency for a law aimed at fighting organised crime, corruption, to be brought to the Constitutional Court and thus not to take the recommendations of relevant institutions and the law to be out of harmony with the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo. I don't think you'll use it for the election campaign and turn it into an electoral campaign”, she said.

In response, Minister Gervala said the law has not been changed from the previous version and that the institutions' remarks have been addressed, while adding that the bill does not affect citizens who are not public officials.

“We are starting from the last, confirming that the elections we left last December. We are not in the election campaign, we have the very critical and very important phase of adopting very important laws, among them the law initiated in 2021, which is still discussed as if it had never been passed to the Parliament, as if it had never been passed into the Constitutional Court, and as if we are now seeking the opinions of the Venice Commission and others. Many of the issues cited have been raised in the past, answered by both the Constitutional Court and the Venice Commission, and concluded on the part of the Ministry of Justice, and changed where formulas in relevant articles have been needed. True, the law in this form presented today is a law changed by what was in the year, but in relation to the law passed in the Assembly in 2024 there is no change. There's not just some cosmetic changes that there's no difference. It is that law that passed through the Parliament in 2024 and the Constitutional Court has expressed its remarks on the way the procedure was passed.

There was no public discussion, and therefore I welcomed the possibility that between two readings we would be able to discuss, in order to remove any dilemma we have”, she said.