The Constitutional Court did not present the exact content of the work of the Constitutional Commission. This is stated in a statement of the Office of Public Communication of the Prime Minister of Kosovo, which has also reacted to the change of paragraph.
The office of the incumbent Prime Minister, Albin Kurti, estimates that the Court has distorted the facts about the automatic distribution of the Assembly after the motion of no confidence in 2010 and 2017.
The Constitutional Court on Monday issued a full judgment. The communiqué states that the Office of the Prime Minister also possessed a copy of the preparatory documents of the Constitution.
“The court also refers to the opinions of the Venice Commission regarding the constitutional arrangements of other states. These constitutional arrangements differ substantially from the constitutional order of Kosovo and as such have no relevance to the issue under consideration. “Kosovo’s constitutional system bears no resemblance to either Moldova or Turkey, much less to the United Kingdom, which has a regulatory system that falls under customary law.”
“The Court also distorts the content of Judgment KO 103/14, in which it is explicitly stated by the Court that the President consults only with the political party or coalition that has won the majority, whether relative or absolute. Meanwhile, what the Court says now is that in the spirit of that verdict, the President is not obliged to consult only the first party “.
The Prime Minister’s Office considers that the Court is also contradictory in its enacting clause, except in relation to the reasoning of the articles of the Constitution, the procedure followed by the President and his competencies at this stage.
The decision was considered inadmissible.
“While in the reasoning of the verdict (on the conclusions) she states that the majority judges have voted for the compatibility of the President’s decree with ‘4 paragraph 4 of Article 95 of the Constitution’, in the enacting clause of the judgment paragraph 4 has been deleted. This cannot be a technical omission or linguistic reformulation, but it is a contradictory presentation of the decision taken by the judges. They have either voted for Article 95 of the Constitution in its entirety or for paragraph 4 of Article 95. Our legal advisers together with experts in the field are preparing a detailed analysis of the entire judgment. This analysis will only be published to clarify the absurdity of this decision, which we cannot accept. This has been a very simple constitutional issue. Not even 162 thousand pages of invented interpretations, let alone 162 pages.