The operation undertaken by Kosovo authorities to demolish 11 unauthorized houses near Ujman Lake remains at the center of discussions, provoking various reactions domestically and from the international community.
Të lidhura
None found
On Tuesday, heavy machinery, accompanied by law enforcement forces, began tearing down structures that officials said had been built on state land belonging to the Public Hydro-economic Enterprise “Ibër-Lepenc”.
Faruk Mujka, the general director of this enterprise, told “Bota sot” that the affected lands have belonged to the entity since 1973, when the expropriation procedure was carried out for the creation of the Ujman reservoir. Mujka emphasized that operations to free state properties will continue in every case of illegal occupations and constructions, regardless of the ethnic origin of the individuals involved.
However, the situation has drawn the attention of the international factor. The European Union Office in Kosovo expressed concern over the decision of the Kosovo executive and called on state bodies to suspend the demolitions, expressing regret for the action taken. A similar position was held by the diplomatic representations of Germany and the United Kingdom in Pristina, raising questions about the respect of full legal procedures in this case and in analogous situations in the northern sector.
Security expert Adem Lushaj, in an interview for the daily “Bota sot”, argues that the operation should be interpreted as enforcement of legal norms and as protection of state property. According to him, if the authorities have followed the formal legal path, then we are dealing with the fulfillment of constitutional obligations and not with a problem that should be analyzed through ethnic or geopolitical lenses.
Addressing the concerns of international partners, Lushaj considers the sensitivity to maintaining stability natural, but insists that lasting peace is built only by not tolerating the violation of rules. He adds that this event should become a reference point for competent bodies, so that the same standard is applied in other areas of the country, especially in national parks like the Albanian Alps and Sharr Mountain, where unchecked interventions and illegal constructions have damaged the environment and public property for years. The protection of nature and public property must not be selective, but a unique standard for everyone. Only in this way can citizens’ trust in state bodies be strengthened and a rule-of-law state be built where the norm is respected without exceptions, he concluded.
Political analyst Zejnullah Jakupi, on the other hand, sees the demolition of unpermitted structures as justified, provided everything has been based on the law, but stresses that local government must ensure impartiality, uniform treatment, and eliminate any shadow of doubt about one-sided enforcement of the law.
According to him, the police action can be considered in service of respecting rules and protecting public property, if state bodies have relied on formal procedures and decisions of competent bodies. Any haphazard construction on public land creates a negative example, as it erodes the authority of the law and penalizes the common interest. He warns, however, that in areas with a delicate context, like the north of Kosovo, transparency and institutional communication are essential to avoid misunderstandings.
Commenting on Brussels’ reaction, Jakupi describes it as an appeal for caution and transparency rather than an opposition to the rule of law. He adds that the call to stop the action should not be read as a rejection of legal principles, but more as a request for a coordinated and clear implementation, without causing new tensions. This case sends a strong signal that the rule of law must be universal and state property must be protected from any kind of violation or unlawful use.
Closing his analysis, Jakupi stresses the importance of the balance between individual rights and collective interest. The right to private property remains a fundamental right, but it cannot be exercised to the detriment of shared spaces or rules. If a building has been erected without permission or on state property, institutions have the duty to apply the law, regardless of any opposition they may face. In a functioning democracy, the decision must not be dictated by momentary pressure, but by procedures, transparency, and the possibility of appeal. This case proves that rules must apply equally to all citizens. Protecting public property and enforcing norms do not conflict with individual rights, but represent the guarantee that everyone’s rights are protected equally. The European Union plays a vital role in monitoring such processes, especially in delicate areas, to ensure that law enforcement does not violate anyone’s fundamental rights, including those of the Serb community. Ultimately, any judgment on this action must be rooted in concrete evidence, documentation, and formal procedures, not just in political perceptions. Consequently, the most fruitful stance of the EU would be not to demand the suspension of an action, but to oversee the process, verify the facts, and ensure that the law is applied without distinction of ethnicity or affiliation.
