Supreme Left a VV fine for 10-year-old mass abuse

The case relates to an election gathering of LVV held on 31 May 2026 in Vushtrri, where a 10-year-old girl was on the scene and quoted before participants.

The Supreme Party estimated that it does not matter whether the initiative for child participation has come from itself or the organiser, as responsibility for managing activity falls on the organiser of the rally.

According to the Court, allowing active participation of a child under the age of 15 in an election event conflicts with electoral regulation, therefore the decision PZAP is legal and based.

Notification:

Supreme Court makes PZAP's decision to fine LVV over the participation of a minor in election campaign.

The College of the Supreme Court of Kosovo has rejected the political subject's complaint Vetevendosje (LVV) -- submitted against the Election Panel's decision on Anxiety and Parashtre (PZAP).

PZAP, with the decision ZP.A.112026 of the date 03.06.2026, had acknowledged the political subject complaints the Democratic League of Kosovo (LDK) and the Nongovernmental Organisation “Kosovo Institute for Justice” (IKD), posing the political subject to the Vetevendosje (LVV) fine of 5.100 (five thousandth of a hundred euros) because of the participation of a child in election campaign activities.

Against that decision, LVV had filed complaints with the Supreme Court, opposing the legality of the PZAP decision.

After reviewing complaints, complaints and all subject papers, the Supreme Court found that the complaint is groundless.

The administered evidence results that in 31.05.26, during an election rally organised by LVV in Vushtrri, a 10-year-old minor girl was on the scene and quoted before the rally participants, dressed in clothes containing the logo of the political subject. The polls presented at PZAP had claimed that the child's active participation in an organised electoral activity constitutes the commitment of a person under the age of 15 to the election campaign, contrary to election rules in power.

In the procedure before PZAP, LVV had claimed that the minor had not been part of the organised assembly programme, was not committed by the political subject, and that the initiative for its presentation had come from itself, in the presence of its parent.

The Supreme Court estimated that these claims are not based. The Court College accepted as fair and based PZAP's legal position, stressing that Article 5 paragraph 3 of the Electoral Order No. 07/2024 for the Electoral Field, Secret Election Monitoring and Financial Declaration stipulates that: “No certified political subject can engage persons under the age of 15 (15) in the” election campaign.

According to the Court's assessment, for the existence of wrongdoing it is not crucial whether the initiative for child participation has come from the organiser or from the minor itself, and whether there has been co-ordination or preliminary planning. The determining fact is that the event organiser has allowed the active participation of a child in an election event, contrary to the pre-emptive ban on election regulations.

The court stressed that the organiser of the rally is responsible for managing activity and for those presenting themselves to participants. Under concrete circumstances, the minor had actively participated in electoral activity, actually supported by evidence administered in the classes.

In view of the purpose of legal provisions for protecting children's best interest and preventing their involvement in election campaigns, the Supreme Court found that the decision was made PZAP is just and law-based, so it rejected LVV's complaint as groundless, leaving PZAP's decision in power.