Kosovo’s acting Prime Minister Albin Kurti has called Kosovo’s Constitutional Court’s ruling in favor of President Hashim Thaci “unjust” and “unacceptable.”
“We did not have high hopes concerning the Constitutional Court’s ruling,” Kurti said, “however, this ruling is beyond any logical or legal level of imagination.” He added that citizens would be informed in the following days of the political steps that will be taken.
He said that the ruling’s text and subtext contains little with regards to constitutional matters, and is dominated by expressions of “disciplinary-punitive slogans.”
According to Kurti, the Constitutional Court provided a reasoning for the President’s case.
“Little to no cases can be found, in the democratic world, wherein the election winner and the standing government are willing to hold new elections and this is made impossible by the Constitutional Court and the President by calling fictive majorities in parliament and spinning objective facts like the critical pandemic crisis. Instead of interpreting the Constitution, the Court seems to have taken this approach: seeing as the President is right, let us try and rationalize it.”
Kurti also said that “the Court stressed that, in 2010 and 2017, following the successful votes of no confidence, neither the will nor the needed parliamentary majority to form a new government did not exist, however it is not clear how it came to this conclusion, seeing as the parliament was disbanded immediately. It is true that the President does not hold the absolute right to disband the parliament, but, precisely for that reason, that right is limited to cases of successful votes of no confidence.”
He accused the Court of wording the ruling as if there was no election winner, adding that the Court considered a successful no-confidence vote against the government to be the same as the latter’s resignation, despite the fact that the Constitution distinguishes between the two.
“The Court shows bias when it states that the [election] winner not only did not propose a candidate, but did not even express the interest to do so,” Kurti said, “This does not stand, because we have constantly stressed that the election winner is not hesitating or refusing.”
“In certain instances, the Court, instead of interpreting, busied itself with writing and rewriting the Constitution, for example points 13 and 18,” he pointed out. “Expressions like ‘the Court stresses that it is self-evident, that this formal ‘consultation’ must be concluded as soon as possible and it includes the need for a quick interactive dynamic,’ or ‘the right to propose a candidate for Prime Minister is both a responsibility and a privilege’ comprise brilliant examples of the creativity of Constitutional Court judges in expressing their admiration towards the country’s President.”
Kurti said that his legal counsel will draft a detailed assessment after they receive the entire text of the ruling.
“Unfortunately, the Constitutional Court sided with those who have captured the state. It spoke of itself first, before and more than it spoke of the matter it reviewed. Our fight continues, alongside the people, who have now gained awareness, against this corrupt caste,” Kurti concluded.
