Lawyer Smakqi: The tariff proposed by the Pristina municipality is discriminated against and illegal

Through a public reaction, Smakqi has demanded that the proposal be withdrawn, arguing it conflicts with the Kosovo Constitution, the Law for Protection from Discrimination and the Law on Lawyers.

According to him, the establishment of such a fee only for lawyers operating in Pristina creates inequality in relation to other members of the Kosovo Lawyers' House that exercise profession in other municipalities.

He estimates the proposal is discriminating, as lawyers under the same professional conditions would be treated differently, depending on the municipality where they conduct their activities.

Smakqi has also stressed that Pristina municipality has no legal basis to set such a fee, arguing that the license and tax of lawyers is the exclusive competence of the Kosovo Lawyers' House.

According to him, the move has no economic reasoning either, as it is not linked to any additional service the municipality would offer to lawyers' offices in exchange for paying the fee.

At the end of the response, he has called on the Kosovo Lawyers' House to officially reject the proposal and, if the remarks are not taken into account, consider the possibility of setting up the administrative indictment in the Kosovo Supreme Court for canceling this part of the underground act.

Smakqi has announced that public discussion of the draft regulation will be held on 4 June 2026 in Pristina's Municipal Assembly, authorising fellow lawyers to use his arguments during the public debate.

Full Posting:

Read Progress Rama!

Comments on the Pristina Community's Drift-Rule for the Annual Tariff/Tiffa 1000m for lawyers on the administrative territory of the Pristina municipality

In the quality of the OAK member, the headquarters in Pristina opposes this with absolute opposition. Drift -Rule specifically on the part of the proposal for the tarifen/haracin illegal reasoning as follows:

1. This proposal to put the tarifeq to OAK members in the administrative territory of the municipality that Pristina conflicts with Article 3 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo, since the ISO YRERE is that all OAK members are no longer equal before the Law of the Lawyer, because it will not be subject to other OAK members in other municipalities.

2. This proposal conflicts with the Law on Protection from Discretion Article 4 where under the same identical conditions this Tarifeq creates the classic ISO DISKRING within the constitutional order of the RKS, since other OAK members in other municipalities will not submit to this 1,000-year-old tarigafici.

3. This proposal has no yurdical base on any legal provision for the Lawyer in effect, nor on the Law on Local Governance, so it interferes with the exclusive OAK component as the only license and taxatory body to its members.

4. This proposal has no economic justification either because it does not constitute a return or output to any countercompensation for extra or normal municipal services to the lawyer's offices in its administrative territory, for example: which municipal services provide for lawyers to seek countercompensation to take public or similar parking.

End

The OAK opposes this Tarifesk proposal with arguments against a part of its members, and unless they are considered to warn lawsuits in the administrative conflict near the Kosovo Suprema Court to annul this part of the underground act as a unconstitutional.

The attorneys who will be participating tomorrow in public discussion at the Pristina Municipal Assembly on the date 04.06.202600 hours to use my post for comments on this Breakstone.