Changes to the Specialist Chambers spark debate between Kosovo and the EU: sovereignty, justice and possible consequences

Changes to Kosovo’s Law on the Specialist Chambers have brought renewed attention to the relationship between the country’s sovereignty, the independence of the judiciary and international obligations, as well as to its relations with the European Union.

European officials have opposed the changes, describing them as incompatible with Kosovo’s international obligations. This has raised questions about their validity and implementation, as well as their possible impact on the country’s European path.

In these circumstances, the legal basis for the changes needs to be clarified, and communication between Pristina and Brussels is necessary. The aim, according to the assessments cited, should be to find a solution that respects the Constitution, Kosovo’s sovereignty and its international commitments, without damaging relations with strategic partners.

“Kosovo must defend its state powers without undermining judicial independence or its international obligations”

Statements by European Commissioner for Enlargement Marta Kos, as well as positions taken by the European External Action Service and the German Embassy in Pristina, have prompted discussion after they opposed the changes to the law.

Analyst Shefqet Avdimetaj told the newspaper Bota sot that Kosovo’s institutions should address the concerns of international partners with legal arguments and institutional responsibility.

He notes that Kosovo is an independent and sovereign state, entitled to exercise its powers through democratic institutions. However, he says, that right does not exempt it from respecting its constitutional and international obligations.

“The Republic of Kosovo is a sovereign and independent state, with its own Constitution, democratic institutions and the right to make decisions through its legitimate institutions. Kosovo’s sovereignty is not a privilege granted to us from outside, but a fundamental right of our statehood, won through a long history of sacrifice and struggle for freedom,” Avdimetaj says.

Referring to Marta Kos’s assessment that the changes are unacceptable, Avdimetaj says the EU should explain the legal grounds on which it opposes them.

According to him, political positions cannot replace legal scrutiny. At the same time, Kosovo’s institutions must demonstrate that the changes are consistent with the Constitution and international agreements.

“Kosovo has the right to ask the EU to clearly explain which provisions of the changes are considered contrary to which international obligations, and what legal basis supports that assessment,” he says.

Avdimetaj believes that the objections and concerns voiced by the European External Action Service and the German Embassy in Pristina, including those relating to the independence of the Specialist Chambers, should be taken seriously.

However, he says the discussion should not be limited to political statements. The relationship between Kosovo’s Constitution, the special law and the international agreements governing the operation of the Specialist Chambers should be examined, he says.

“Kosovo should not accept that such an important debate remain confined to political statements,” Avdimetaj stresses.

Regarding claims by the Democratic Party of Kosovo (PDK) and MP Përparim Gruda that the changes do not violate international commitments and are not intended to close the Specialist Court, but to limit its mandate, the analyst says their content and legal effects must be considered.

He notes that proposals to lower the maximum sentence to 15 years, allow appeals to Kosovo’s Supreme Court and enable sentences to be served in Kosovo require detailed legal assessment.

“It is not enough to say that the changes are legal; that must be argued. But, at the same time, it is not enough to declare them illegal simply because an international institution opposes them,” he says.

Avdimetaj believes the issue should not be treated as another confrontation between the government and the opposition. Regarding Prime Minister Albin Kurti’s position that the changes were rushed and insufficiently analysed, he says institutions should make their arguments public and clarify any potential legal problems.

According to the analyst, Parliament, the government and legal institutions should coordinate their actions so that Kosovo’s interests are not harmed by party-political disputes.

He adds that sovereignty and impartial justice can be defended at the same time. The accused are entitled to a fair trial, victims and their families are entitled to justice, and witnesses must be given full protection.

“These principles are not in conflict. They are part of the same idea of the rule of law,” he says.

Avdimetaj calls for Kosovo’s liberation war to be distinguished from individual criminal responsibility. In his view, no judicial process should create collective guilt for a people or deny their right to freedom and independence.

Commenting on Marta Kos’s warning that countries that backslide on the rule of law move further away from the prospect of EU membership, the analyst says Kosovo should take the message seriously without setting aside its national interests.

“Sovereignty and European integration are not two goals that exclude one another. Kosovo can defend its interests while also respecting the commitments it has undertaken,” he says.

He calls for a full legal review of the changes and a transparent response to the concerns of international partners. Any doubts about their constitutionality or compatibility with international agreements, Avdimetaj says, should be addressed by the competent bodies, without political interference in judicial independence.

In conclusion, the analyst says dialogue with the EU should continue on the basis of Kosovo’s sovereignty, legal arguments, transparency and mutual respect.

“Our state’s dignity is not defended with strong statements, but with strong institutions, legal arguments and decisions that serve Kosovo’s long-term interests,” Shefqet Avdimetaj told Bota sot.

Burjani says Kosovo and the European Union should discuss changes to the Law on the Specialist Chambers to clarify their validity and implementation

Legal expert Blerim Burjani says the issue should be resolved through talks between the parties, so that it is clearly established whether the legal changes are valid and how they can be implemented.

In an interview with Bota sot, he notes that circumstances have changed and that Kosovo and the EU should discuss the legal provisions and the possibility of aligning their positions.

Burjani stresses that the changes should not be addressed solely through political objections and public statements, but should become the subject of dialogue between Kosovo and the European Union.

“The EU and Kosovo should discuss this law, because circumstances have changed. The legal provisions need to be discussed and, otherwise, one side must back down—either Kosovo or the EU,” Burjani told Bota sot.

He considers dialogue essential to clarify disagreements and determine the next steps. The solution, he says, should provide legal and institutional certainty and avoid ambiguity in the law’s implementation.

Burjani says the changes approved by Kosovo’s institutions should be discussed with the EU to clarify whether they can enter into force and be implemented without causing further clashes between the parties.

“The changes should be discussed and approved by the EU as well, so that they are valid, and then the law should be implemented,” he says.

He adds that direct communication is needed to clarify the parties’ positions, since disagreements could create uncertainty about the actions of the institutions.

However, whether the changes are valid and whether EU approval is required remains, according to the article, a legal question that must be clarified on the basis of the applicable legal framework and agreements.

The legal expert says implementation of the law remains disputed until the relationship between the approved changes and the European Union’s position is clarified.

“As things stand, it is unclear how this law will be implemented,” Burjani stresses.

According to him, the uncertainties should be resolved through institutional discussions to prevent further disagreements and determine the way forward. Kosovo and the EU, he says, should make their positions clear before implementation of the changes begins.

As for possible consequences, Burjani says it is not yet known what steps the European Union might take against Kosovo.

“The consequences are unknown; it is not clear whether the EU will take any action against Kosovo,” he says.

Burjani concludes that discussions and clarification of the legal basis are necessary to determine the next steps, clarify how the law will be implemented and understand the possible impact on relations with the EU.