Supreme partially abolishes UPA regulation for academic staff advanced procedures

In the media communiqué, it adds that, the Supreme, has declared illegal and abolished Article 18 paragraph 7 of this regulation, which reserved the Pristina University Senate's right that “will each moment attract recognition of publication in questionable magazines or questionable publishers, but prior to the final assessment of candidate”.

In reasoning of the act, the Supreme Court points out that the notions “suspect constitutions” and “alleged publishers” are not clearly defined in the legislation in force, while the conflicting provisions do not specify objective criteria, decision-making procedures or legal means for candidates, creating space for administrative arbitrators, the notice says.

Communications:

Supreme Court partially abolishes Pristina University orderise for academic staff advanced procedures

Pristina, 13 May 2026 ♫ The Supreme Court of Kosovo, in the legal issue of the administrative conflict, according to the indictment of the Nongovernmental Organisation “Kosovo Justice Institute (IKD)” against indictees, Pristina University “Pristina”, has partially approved the application for a review of the legality of the No. Prot. 1/282, date 03.06.2025, for Selective Procedures related to nomination, Advancing and Re-election of Academy Staff at Pristina University.

By its bias, the Supreme Court has declared it illegal and abolished Article 18 paragraph 7 of this regulation, which reserved the Pristina University Senate the right that “every moment will attract recognition of publication in questionable magazines or suspicious publishers, but prior to final assessment of candidate”.

The court estimated that this provision does not rely on sufficient legal or statuteary authorisation, exceeds the competencies prescribed with the Law for Higher Education and the State of the University of Pristina, as well as violates the principles of judicial security, predictability and legitimate expectations of candidates in academic procedures.

In the argument of the act, the Supreme Court stresses that the notions <x0-revisited” and the alleged “botors” are not clearly defined in the legislation in force, while the controversial provisions do not define objective criteria, decision-making procedures or protective legal means for candidates, creating space for administrative arbitrators.

The assessment of scientific publications should be based on magazine status and indexing at the moment of publishing scientific work, while later developments regarding magazine status cannot produce retroactive consequences for candidates as long as no violation is proven by the author himself.

In terms of the rest of the prosecution, the Supreme Court has rejected the request for illegal statements and the abolition of the 16th entry of the same regulation as groundless. The court has estimated that the introductions, in terms of law, have explanatory and non-standard character, therefore do not constitute the binding independent judicial provision.