Supreme Court suspends promotional process in Kosovo Police

According to the Supreme Court's announcement, with the P.N.16/2026 ruling temporarily banned the implementation of Article 7, paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of this administrative instruction, until a final decision is made in the judicial procedure.

The indictment was filed 10 June by the V.Z. From the Year, which has called for the declaration of lawlessness and the partial abolition of contested provisions, claiming they violate the principle of meritocracy and equal treatment in the promotion process.

According to claims filed in the indictment, contested provisions enable police officials with at least ten years of active experience in the Kosovo Police, who have not received promotions during this period, to apply for two higher degrees simultaneously, without being subjected to restrictions related to the minimum length of stay in the preliminary degree.

The plaintiff has argued that such an overhaul “creates advantages for a certain category of police officials in proportion to those who have gone through regular promotion procedures and have exercised duties, responsibilities and professional experience related to the respective degrees”.

It has also raised concerns about the impact these provisions may have on the hierarchical structure and chain of command within the Kosovo Police.

The contested sub-deposits may violate the hierarchical structure and chain of command within the Kosovo Police, as they enable police officials who have not exercised supervisory positions and leaders in the Sergeant's rank to compete directly for the lieutenant's rank, in the same procedure as officials who have passed preliminary promotional processes and have gained their respective experience at a supervisory position”, said in the indictment's reasoning.

After reviewing the submitted demand and documentation, the Supreme Court has estimated that the legal conditions for the appointment of a special security measure, preceded by Article 100 of the Law for Administrative Conflicts, have been met.

In its reasoning, the Court emphasises that “the appointment has raised serious claims regarding the legality of controversial provisions, including claims to exceed legal authorisation, violation of the principle of meritocracy, influence on the hierarchy and the chain of command, as well as lack of proportionality and rationale”.

The court has also estimated there is the danger that continuing the promotion procedure will cause consequences that would be difficult or impossible to correct later.

“In the preliminary assessment of the request, the Court concluded that there is real danger of causing a serious and irreversible damage in the event of continuing to implement the disputed provisions and promotion procedures based on them. The court also estimated that the provisional suspension of the implementation of these provisions does not seriously affect public interest, while in line with the principle of proportionality”, the decision said.

According to the Supreme Court, completing the promotion procedure before a final decision is made on the legality of disputed provisions could produce irreversible consequences.

Remembering that the promotion procedure has been initiated on the basis of provisions that are the subject of judicial review and that its conclusion before the merit settlement could create irreversible consequences, the Court considered that preserving the existing situation through the specific security measure is necessary until the final decision” is highlighted.

The Supreme Court has clarified that this decision was made only under the preliminary review of the case and does not prejudge the final epilogue of the indictment. The final decision on the legality of contested Administrative Guide provisions No. The 01-2026 will be taken in after full review of the case in the corresponding judicial procedure.