IKD sues Parliament for Intervention on Commission's Term of Testing Jurisprudence

Through this indictment, The IKD opposes the way the Assembly has interrupted the mandate of the Commission for Proving Jurisprudence, which under Law No. 08/L-033 for the Jurisprudence Proving had a three-year term until December 15th, 2026.

The indictment reportedly states that the Parliament's decision is illegal and arbitrary, as through it the preliminary decision for the Commission's appointment has been abolished and its entire composition has been replaced without any clear legal basis, without regular procedure and without legal reasoning.

According to the IKD, the Law for Proving Jurisprudence gives the Assembly competency only for the appointment of members of the Commission, but does not foresee competence for cutting off their mandate prematurely. The indictment emphasises that lack of legal provisions for dismissal or suspension of the mandate cannot be interpreted as authorisation for arbitrary intervention in the mandate of an independent professional body.

Specifically, in the indictment, it is suggested that the “task force for appointment does not automatically include the authority to cut off the mandate prematurely. If the lawmaker had intended to grant the Parliament the right to download or replace the composition of the Commission during the mandate, he would have determined this specifically in the law by determining the basis, procedure and standards for exercising this component. This approach has been followed by legislation regulating other independent bodies”.

And so, The IKD in the indictment has stressed that the controversial decision contains no rationality regarding the need to cut off the existing Commission's mandate, does not identify any concrete violations on the part of the commission members, and provides no explanation on the legal basis it has served for its replacement before the end of the legal mandate.

In this direction, The IKD considers that the Parliament's decision has also been issued contrary to the Law on General Administrative Procedure, as there is no judicial and actual reasoning of the administrative act, violating the principles of legitimacy, judicial safety and legitimate expectations.

Moreover, The IKD in the indictment has stressed that this approach creates dangerous institutional precedents, since it implies that the mandates of the professional organs appointed by law can be interrupted at any time without clear legal criteria and without regular procedure.

The IKD has also recalled the standard set by the Constitutional Court in the case of KO127/21, regarding the dismissal of members of the Independent Council for the Kosovo Civil Service, under which the mandates of independent bodies cannot be interrupted collectively and without concrete individual reasoning.

In the indictment, The IKD has estimated that the Jurisprudence test presents mechanisms of particular importance to the justice system, as it directly affects the professional assessment of lawyers aimed at exercising key functions in the judicial and judicial system in the Republic of Kosovo. For this reason, according to the IKD, the composition and functioning of the Commission must rely on the principles of independence, institutional stability and legitimacy.

Through this indictment, the IKD has proposed to the Administrative Court to approve the indictment as based and cancel the No. verdict. 10-V-276/1 of the Republic of Kosovo's Assembly as illegal.