Over-term vote: Supreme Court Makes Decision With Plate

The Supreme Court's announcement said that, with PZAP's decision, it was approved as being based on the complaint of the Democratic Institute of Kosovo, where the CEC's decision to allow voting on diplomatic documents identified by the Republic of Kosovo, with expired terms of validity, and that the PZAP had assessed that the CEC had no legal authorisation that, through an administrative decision, allow voting with expired documents, as the general election required us to express valid documents for the exercise of law vote within the country, as well as for diplomatic representation.

Communications:

Supreme Court rejects CEC member's complaint about voting with expired documents

Pristina, June 12th, 2026 -- the College of the Supreme Court of Kosovo -- has condemned the complaint of Violet Salih, a member of the Central Election Commission (KQZ) -- submitted against the Election Panel's decision on Anxiety and Parashta (PZAP), ZP.Anr.19/2026.

With PZAP's decision, dated June 5, 2026, the CEC's decision no. 01/1198/2026 of June 3rd, 2026, for allowing voting in diplomatic representations with identification documents of the Republic of Kosovo, with the expired deadline of validity.

PZAP had estimated that the CEC had no legal authorization that, through an administrative decision, would allow voting with expired documents, as Article 90 of Law No. 08/L-228 for the General Elections typically requires the presentation of valid documents for the exercise of voting rights, both within the country and diplomatic representations.

Against that decision, CEC member Violet Salihu had filed a complaint with the Supreme Court, claiming that the CEC's ruling was aimed at guaranteeing the effective exercise of constitutional right to vote for citizens registered for voting abroad and that PZAP had wrongly interpreted the relevant legal provisions.

After reviewing the paperwork and legal provisions in force, the Supreme Court College found that the complaint is illegal because of the lack of active procedure legal legitimacy of the forger.

The court stressed that the right to file a complaint against PZAP decisions is explicitly regulated with the Law for General Elections and that an individual member of the CEC does not enjoy independent procedure to exercise legal means on personal behalf against PZAP decisions, while it is not a direct party to procedure and does not testify to the violation of a personal and direct legal interest.

According to the College assessment, the CEC exercises its competencies as a college organ, while participation of members in the decision-making process does not automatically create the quality of the side in the judicial procedure, nor the right to act individually on behalf of the institution.

Court also praised that decision The PZAP does not produce direct judicial consequences to status, the rights or individual obligations of the complaint, but has to do with assessing the legality of an institutional decision by the CEC.

For these reasons, the College of the Supreme Court decided to dismiss the complaint as illegal, without being issued in a merit review of claims concerning the legality of the PZAP's controversial decision.