IKD: Changing the composition of the Jurispence Testing Commission is illegal

However, The IKD estimates that this decision is openly contrary to the law. Current members of the Commission for Providing the Jurisprudence Test have active mandates by December of this year, a mandate defined with relevant decisions that have been abolished by the Government without any legal basis. Law No. 08/L-033 for testing Jurisprudence, in any provision, gives the Government no permission to change the composition of this Commission during the length of its members' mandate. Consequently, the interruption of the mandate in this way, on the basis of general and abstract reasonings, represents arbitrary action, violating the principle of legitimacy and judicial security.

The way in which the composition of this commission is tried creates serious doubts about interference in its work. These allegations are further compounded when it comes to the fact that the Ministry of Justice, contrary to the law, has not announced deadlines for providing the Jurisprudence test since the April 2025 deadline. Under these circumstances, changing the composition of the Commission cannot be seen separate from the way this process is administered by the Ministry of Justice.

For these reasons, The IKD estimates that this is an illegal decision and calls on the Republic of Kosovo's decision not to vote the same. The Assembly should not legitimise a decision that has been made without legal grounds and that violates the credibility, legal security and independence of the operation of this Commission.

On the other hand, the serious dilemma also arises in relation to the proposed new composition of the Commission. The chairman of this commission has been nominated Mr. Arian Gashi, who currently exercises the post of chief of the Kosovo Prosecutorial Council. According to Article 18.5 of Law No. 06/ L-056 for the Kosovo Prosecutorial Council, “chairman, deputy chairman and member prosecutors of the Council have no right to exercise any other public or professional duty for which they are rewarded at payment, besides teaching in the institutions of higher education, the Academy of Justice or Cases introduced by law”.

Similarly, maintaining two leading positions raises dilemmas in relation to Law No. 06/L-011 for the Prevention of Conflict of Interest in Public Function Army. Article 13.2 of this law stipulates that the high official cannot be a member of more than a public-owned company's management body, public-owned stock society, as well as organs of other public institutions, unless it is explicitly provided by law. According to the same article, the senior official, in the quality of the member of the cited organs, has no right to pay, except for the right to compensate for travel spending and other related expenses. Facing these dilemmas for the existence of conflict of interest, The IKD estimates it remains with the Agency for Prevention of Corruption to examine the eventual existence of the conflict of interest in the concrete case. /Periscope