Blerim Isufaj sues KKP, urges cancellation of new competition for chief state prosecutor

In the administrative conflict indictment, which has provided “Justice Trust“, Isufaj has contested the Council's decision to open the contest without pre-resulting its proposal, with which the president's decree was proposed exactly the Isufaj lawsuit, broadcast Periscopi.

According to the indictment, which attorney Artan Qerkeyhni represents, the controversial KPK ruling contains no legal advice, contrary to Article 48 of the Law on General Procedure, which has also extended the deadline for establishing the administrative conflict and confirming the judicial uncertainty stemming from the very nature of the act.

The indictment emphasises that Isufaj is subject to active legitimacy, as it was proposed by the KKP for decreeing as chief state prosecutor first in the competition process on 2022 and again with the November 1st 2023 decision. It says that this proposal had created legitimate expectations in the plaintiff.

Meanwhile, the Council's decision to open the new contest, issued without formal abolition of the preliminary proposal, is said to directly affect the judicial area of the plaintiff, because it bypasses the procedure in which he is currently an active subject, without even allowing him to formally contest the procedure of passing into a new contest.

Furthermore, the indictment reportedly acknowledges all features of the constitutional administrative act, produces legal effects for a specific circle of persons or individually for the plaintiff, and is completed in the administrative procedure.

As for the chronology of the procedure, the indictment points out that following the conflict procedure in 2022, The KKP, based on constitutional competence and the Law for the KKP, had nominated official Isufaj for decreeing the president. This proposal has been contested by counterconventions, disputes that have resulted in the Constitutional Court's decision making, which have not listed violations of the competition process, assessment, selection and proposal of the plaintiff, and that none has set temporary measures for the suspension of the appointment process.

Nevertheless, the indictment reportedly states that then President Vjosa Osmani has produced no formal acts regarding the proposal. But in October 2023 at a conference for media and through a letter, he had announced his refusal to appoint a proposed candidate, but without issue of any decree, whether of appointment or rejection.

“Arsyet of indiscretion has been publicly communicated, which legally does not constitute a constitutional act, an administrative act or a decree with judicial effects”, is said in the indictment.

As a consequence of this institutional deadlock, the indictment reportedly appointed KPK responsible for the chief state prosecutor's duties. And on November 1, 2023, it was redeployed for the same name, which had no formal act from Preidence or a decision, a rejection or a rational decision.

Furthermore, it is said that on February 26th, 2026, the KKP has addressed the presidency with a new letter concerning this process, which it has again not acted on. And in May 2026, the president, Albulen Haxhiu, was elected through a media conference and answering journalists' questions, has claimed that the proposal for the chief prosecutor's appointment under the KPC-adminisced competition considers it closed, which the plaintiff stresses even in this case no formal decree or decision was issued.

The former proposals -- the KKP -- on the 1805.2026 date has issued a decision to announce the new public competition for the same position. The decision has been made in parallel with the judicial existence of the preliminary proposal -- that is, in terms of two parallel procedures in the same position” -- it is said in the indictment.

Furthermore, it is said that the verdict in question contains neither legal advice nor an explical legal basis for abolishing the preliminary proposal, nor reasoning on the actual judicial status of the plaintiff in the previous procedure.

The plaintiff points out that the fundamental principle of administrative law stipulates that an administrative act can be annulled, withdrawn, or replaced only through another administrative act of the same rank, of the same form, and of express reasoning.

“The KKP, as a constitutional public body, cannot create two judicially-active parallel procedures for the same public position. Either there's a proposal for the valid plaintiff, and then the competition is legally impossible, or it exemplifies a formal decision of abolishing or withdrawing the preliminary proposal. Such a second decision has never been issued”, the indictment says.

Hence, it says that a lack of this decision makes the act of illegalally opposed both material and procedural.

The plaintiff emphasises that Article 109) of the Constitution stipulates that the chief state prosecutor is appointed and dismissed by the president on the basis of the KKP's proposal. Which, in the concrete case, says this constitutional procedure has never been closed, because no decree has been issued from the KKP proposal, nor party nor rejection.

“The whole process of refusing to appoint the proposed candidate has been managed by public statements and press conferences, without ever producing a formal act that could be subject to constitutional or legal control”, the indictment said.

This approach, to avoid judicial control of the presidency institution's decision-making, is said to violate the competence and constitutional and legal independence of the KKP, but also the constitutional rights of the proposed candidate.

As long as the presidency has not issued any formal acts, the KKP's proposal remains legally active”, said in the indictment.

So according to the indictment, KKP does not have a self-recognitional competence to evaluate its proposal as “rejected” or as silent “” and pass into new procedure. But it is said that in the legal vacuum, created without the charge of the plaintiff, The KKP has issued its ruling of 18.05.2026.

If, on the contrary, the proposal only qualifies as a procedure within a single constitutional procedure under Article 109 (7), then that procedure is not complete until the decreeary body releases the formal act, and as long as the procedure is not complete, The KKP cannot open a second parallel procedure. In both cases, the announcement of the new competition is legally illegal”, said further in the indictment.

The plaintiff points out that the president's lack of competence to reject the Council's proposal is confirmed even by constitutional historicality. Since constitutional amendments were proposed in 2012, under which the president would be determined competencies to reject only once the prosecutor's appointment proposal, with the obligation to act on the Council's proposal. But these amendments have never been adopted in the Kosovo Assembly.

Nor is it said the Law for the Prosecutorial Council provides for the president's institution to reject the proposed candidate for the chief prosecutor.

“Condirectly, making the decision of 18.05.2026 for announcing the new competition still saw

The appointment process closed under the preliminary proposal, and without any presidential decree that

would be subject to constitutional control, KKP has self-submitted control

Political fact, violating exactly its constitutional independence guaranteed by Article 110

Constitution”, said in indictment.

Also, the plaintiff has stressed that the judicial framework envisions the mechanism of decree in silence after

The 60-day deadline for ordinary prosecutors and judges, the mechanis, which is said to be imperiling the return of presidential inaction in the permanent institutional impasse of the procedure. For the chief prosecutor's position, however, this mechanism is not specifically envisioned.

Thus, unequivocal treatment of the plaintiff as the KKP's nominated for chief state prosecutor, compared to the other prosecutors proposed by the same organ, reportedly constitutes actual discrimination in public office approach, in opposition to Article 24 of the Constitution and Article 14 of KEDNI concerning its Article 6.

Always according to the indictment, Article 31 of the Constitution and Article 6 of KEDNJ guarantee the right to decision-making within the reasonable deadline. Hence, the plaintiff is said to have been held in an indefinite judicial situation for more than four years, without ever making a formal decision on the status of his proposal.

This period, it is said, in itself, constitutes violations of the standard of a reasonable deadline and is multiple than the deadline the law tolerates for comparable categories of officials.

The proposal by the competent constitutional body, according to the indictment, has created a legitimate objective expectations based on concrete judicial basis, not pending simple subjectives. This expectations are said to be an expression of the “principle of defending legitimate faith”, the fundamental principle of continental administrative law.

The controversial decision of the 1805.26, opening parallel procedures without formal abolition of the preliminary proposal, the plaintiff claims he directly violates this legitimate expectations and at the same time deprives the plaintiff of the opportunity to formally contest the status of his proposal. This reportedly makes the act incompatible with Article 31 of the Constitution and Article 6 of KEDNJ.

The lack of judicial advice has two consequences: the first extends the deadline for the establishment of administrative conflict under the 18th article of the KA; the second confirms that the KKP itself does not have the legal nature of its act clear. This systematic uncertainty is in itself a violation of the principle of normity, essential component of rule of law”, the indictment says.

In the indictment, which has provided “The Justice Vocation”, notes that the KPK's decision to declare the new contest is illegal and violates the plaintiff's constitutional rights under provisions 24, 31, 32 and 54 of the Constitution and Article 6 and 13 of KEDNJ, but also the institutional independence of the Prosecutorial Council under the guarantees of Article 110 of the Constitution, including the principle of judicial security.

The indictment says such approaches have already been identified as violating the Convention in the consolidated practice of GEDNj in cases (Sobczyńska and Others Against Poland; Grzão vs. Poland; Köves vs Romania; Stoianoglo vs Moldova.

“According to Article 22 par. Two of the Constitution, KEDNJ is directly implemented and has superiority over the common laws, while Article 53 and 54 of the Constitution make GEDN's jurisdiction mandatory for public authorities. GjEDNI's relevant practice brings clear orientation to concrete case”, said the indictment.

Based on the indictment, it is said that the most direct precedent for the circumstances of this indictment is the special act issued in the Sobczyska case and others against Poland (Action of May 21st 2026).

“in that case, the forgers were candidates who had successfully passed the competing procedures for judicial positions and were nominated for appointment, but the president of the Republic refused to appoint without any reason, while administrative courts and the Constitutional Court refused to consider this denial, considering that a disrepute act that does not submit to judicial control. The court found a violation of the right to access the court, stressing that, since the forgers were not informed of the reasons for the refusal and had not been able to counter it, they had not been protected against what could legitimately be suspected of being an arbitrary decision”, the indictment said.

According to the indictment, the principles of this act are directly applicable even in concrete cases.

Even in the concrete case (a) a competitive process had developed that had not resulted in any irregularities from courts; (b) The Council had proposed the candidate in the manner defined by constitutions and law; (c) the appointment had been refused de facto without any constitutional and legal basis; and (d) no formal decree was issued that could be submitted to judicial and constitutional control. The KKP's decision of the 1805.2026 not only ratifys this de facto stalemate, but deepens it, denying the plaintiffs any formal epilog”, the indictment says.

The plaintiff mentions other cases, until he points out that in the indictment in the case of C214/21, the Constitutional Court has found that courts are obliged, so they have competence, to examine the decrees of the President of the Republic, and that refusal to do so violates the right to access justice under Article 31 of the Constitution and Article 6 of KEDNJ.

“Consequently, theis that the decision-making concerning the appointment of the chief prosecutor would be incompatible with judicial control is unacceptable in Kosovo's constitutional order, and such an uncontrolled impasse cannot serve as a basis for the KKP to open a new” procedure, the indictment said.

Therefore, the plaintiff has filed a request to postpone the execution of the verdict, with which the new competition for the chief state prosecutor was announced. This requirement was submitted on the basis of nine 99 and 100 of the Law on Administrative Conflicts.

“According to Article 100 front. 1 of the KA, the Court can decide the postponement if two conditions -- which, in concrete cases, are fully met, making the postponement necessary, proportional and urgent measures” -- are said in the indictment.

The first condition concerns that executing the decision would cause plain and irreparable damage to the plaintiffs.

The “Dum derived from the execution of the controversial decision is not hypothetical and does not depend on the final outcome of the contest. It is immediately realised when the competition enters the operational phase, since opening the deadline for accepting” applications, it is said in the indictment.

On the other hand, based on the indictment, Isufaj currently enjoys a special and non-renewable judicial status.

“is the only person in the Republic of Kosovo to retain the quality of the candidate proposed by the constitutional body competent to the position of the chief of state, without formal secession of this quality by the decreeary body. This status is not abstract expectations, but the judicial position gained through regular KPK acts, which distinguishs the plaintiff from any other current or possible candidate”, is said in the indictment.

According to the indictment, once the first new candidate is nominated for decree under the contest of May 18, 2026, this particular status will be extinguished.

“This transformation is immediate, irreversible and cannot be restored to any later judicial rulings: even if this Court later annulled the verdict, the status gained by the plaintiff could not be restored to its original form, because the fact of opening the parallel contest would already have produced irreversible consequences. Beyond that, the continuation of the procedure would lead to a state of fact being carried out, where it could be proposed and eventually decreed another candidate, removing any practical beneficial effect from a later judicial decision in favour of the plaintiff”, it is said further in the indictment.

Based on the indictment provided by “Justice Vow”, the damage is said to be irreparable.

The “is analog with the situation handled by GEDNj on the Sobczyska case and the others against Poland, where the loss of the real opportunity for effective rights protection, in the absence of a formal act of control, was determined to violate the right to access to court”, further said in the indictment.

The second condition, according to the indictment, concerns that postponing the execution of the decision does not conflict with public interest and does not cause great damage to the opposing side or to the third party.

The public interest in this case is not affected by the delay; rather, it is protected through it. Currently, the chief prosecutor's post is exercised by the task leader appointed by the KKP itself, so the institutional continuation of the State Prosecutor is completely guaranteed. Likewise, the KKP does not submit to any binding legal term that would make the contest of 18.05.26 unappreciated; the very fact that the KKP has tolerated presidency passiveity for more than two years shows that there is no institutional emergency justifying the execution of immediately”, the indictment said.

Rather, according to the indictment, the supreme public interest requires that, before a new procedure can be opened that can produce final irreversible acts, the legal issue of the pre-procedure status is settled in advance.

The continuation of the competition without legally completing the preliminary process would legitimise a constitutional violation, undermine public confidence in the institutions of justice and deeply violate the constitutional independence of the Prosecutorial Council, creating dangerous precedents under which the chief prosecutor's appointment would remain in absolute uncontrolled discretion. According to the provisions 99 and 100 of the KA, the extension is also necessary to protect the plaintiff's constitutional rights according to Article 24, 31, 32, 53 and 54 of the Constitution”, it is said further in the Isufaj indictment against the KKP.

Therefore, Isufaj has demanded that the indictment be approved as based and annulled as a criminal, Kosovo Prosecutorial Council decision of 1805.2026 for the announcement of the competition for the chief state post.

Also, with the indictment he has sought to establish that the Council's decision on November 1st 2023, with him

Which plaintiff Isufaj has been nominated for decree as chief state prosecutor, is still in force and produces legal effects, because it has not been consumed by any formal act of decree, nor has it been abolished or withdrawn by the unknown KKP itself through a formal act of rank and form.

Isufaj has demanded to establish that the Council has no authority to take any action or to issue a new act on the head of state position, including without restricting the public competition and any preparation or act of its implementation, until the proposal of the date 01.11.23 for the decree of the Isufaj accuser has not been formally abolished by the constitutional body through an act of reasoning expressed, in accordance with Article 109 procedure, paragraph 7 of the Constitution, and with the fundamental principle that no administrative act can be replaced without pre-resulting for another act of administrative and the same rank.

Also, with the indictment it is required to force the KKP to compensate the plaintiffs for the procedure's expenses under the OAK fee. At the same time, it has proposed that the Court, under Article 100 of the LKA, issue a decision to postpone the execution of the administrative act - namely, the postponement of the Kosovo Prosecutorial Council's decision of 18.05.2026 for announcing the competition for the post of chief of state until the final deployment of this issue in administrative conflict.