More than 14,000 court hearings a year, Salihu: A major challenge for Pristina prosecutors

The Basic Prosecution Office in Pristina is facing a considerable workload, not only because of the large number of cases and the shortage of prosecutors, but also because of their frequent participation in court proceedings.

During 2025, its three departments took part in more than 14,000 court hearings, which, according to assessments, left prosecutors with little time to devote to other cases.

On Monday, Arianit Salihu, deputy chief prosecutor of the Basic Prosecution Office in Pristina, presented the 2025 report to the Kosovo Prosecutorial Council.

Salihu said that the institution had worked with 52 prosecutors. The Serious Crimes Department carried over 633 cases involving 2,400 people and received 469 new cases; of these, 444 cases involving 848 people were resolved. The Juvenile Department inherited 567 cases. Meanwhile, the General Department carried over a total of 4,160 cases involving 11,064 people from 2024, while 6,689 cases were concluded during 2025. In total, the three departments closed 7,744 cases involving 9,391 people. He added that 2025 could not be described as a weak year, but that in 2026 the number of prosecutors was relatively low and needed to be increased to strengthen efficiency.

Prosecutorial Council member Visar Krasniqi asked Salihu whether the Economic Crime and Corruption Unit should continue to exist, given the limited number of prosecutors in relation to the caseload in Pristina. He asked whether it was worth investing in the unit or whether reorganization and investment were needed.

Salihu described the unit as important, but stressed that its capacities needed to be strengthened. He recalled that there had previously been doubts about the unit’s existence, but that the former prosecutor had convinced the Council that it was highly important for handling economic crime and corruption, a view he also shares. According to him, the unit currently has designated prosecutors who deal exclusively with these cases and, if the unit did not exist, those cases would be redistributed. The unit should continue its work, but it must receive strong support from the Kosovo Prosecutorial Council to increase its capacity and staff, improve knowledge and provide training, so that all doubts can be eliminated.

The deputy chief prosecutor also mentioned the challenge of working overtime and on days off. He stressed that the Council was aware of the workload of this prosecution office, which does not operate only on an administrative schedule from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Most prosecutors continue working after 4:00 p.m., come to the office on Saturdays and Sundays, and handle cases from home as well. According to him, if they were limited to official working hours, they would not be able to cope with the workload. It has still not been possible for every prosecutor to have an assistant. He singled out the number of hearings as another challenge: prosecutors in the Serious Crimes Department represented the prosecution in 1,597 hearings, those in the Juvenile Department in 1,120, and those in the General Department in 11,305. The total number of hearings exceeds 14,000. According to him, prosecutors do not have a single day available to work on their cases and summon the parties because they spend the entire day in hearings, and this is also worsening the number of resolved cases.

Member Milot Krasniqi recalled the tension at the previous meeting with Blerim Isufaj, chief prosecutor of the Special Prosecution Office, and noted that the working atmosphere was calmer this time. He said it was fortunate that the atmosphere was better today and that there was an opportunity to present the results of the work, unlike the previous week.

Kosovo Prosecutorial Council Chair Arian Gashi did not comment on the remark. He said that the atmosphere depended on how the reporting entities presented their reports; today, the entity was answering questions rather than commenting on them. According to him, reporting entities were there to report, not to ask questions, and his duty as chair was to intervene and maintain order whenever necessary.

Gashi then asked whether the instructions of the Court of Appeals Prosecution Office were being implemented when cases were returned to the Basic Prosecution Office in Pristina for retrial. Salihu replied that they had often received decisions from the Court of Appeals Prosecution Office without concrete instructions. There had been cases with no instructions, cases in which the re-examination of witnesses and the injured party had been requested without clarifying the purpose of the re-examination, while they had assessed that there was nothing left to re-examine. There had also been a recommendation from the Court of Appeals Prosecution Office to take action against a person over a decision made by an institution with which that person had not been connected at all.

Chief State Prosecutor Zejnulla Gashi said that the situation would be reviewed to determine which arguments were more sustainable, with the aim of preventing cases from being returned and avoiding the “ping-pong” effect, which was contributing to delays in proceedings and affecting the overall performance of prosecution offices. He added that in the future these issues would be addressed by the Office of the Chief State Prosecutor and that the arguments would be assessed at future collegiums.

At the end, the Kosovo Prosecutorial Council voted to approve the report presented by Arianit Salihu, deputy chief prosecutor of the Basic Prosecution Office in Pristina.