PDK contests Assembly formation and presidency election in Constitutional Court

The Democratic Party of Kosovo has filed a complaint with the Constitutional Court, asking it to assess whether the process of constituting the Assembly, including the selection of the speaker and deputy speakers, has been in accordance with the country’s fundamental law.

After submitting the request, party representatives Arian Tahiri, Përparim Gruda, and lawyer Faton Fetahu stressed the urgency of a decision from this court. According to them, the actions of institutions stemming from a legislature that claims to have been established in violation of the Constitution risk bringing about severe legal and institutional consequences.

The head of the PDK parliamentary group, Arian Tahiri, explained that the complaint’s object includes the assessment of the decision to declare the Assembly constituted, the election of the speaker, as well as the procedure and voting for deputy speakers.

“We have repeatedly expressed our confidence in the work and professional integrity of the Constitutional Court. Therefore, we consider it indispensable and immediate that a decision be taken as quickly as possible, in order to prevent damage and more complicated situations in the legal and institutional sphere,” Tahiri said.

He warned that even a government emerging from such an Assembly could pass unlawful acts, if it is established that its foundation, namely the constitution of the Assembly, is unconstitutional. “For every illegal decision, we will turn to the Court to bring the country back onto constitutional rails and to ensure respect for institutions and the highest legal act, the Constitution of Kosovo,” he added.

MP Përparim Gruda argued that, based on the Constitution and a prior ruling of the Constitutional Court, the deadline for forming the Assembly was August 8. He asserted that later the Vetëvendosje Movement had set September 6 as a political deadline, but even that deadline was not met.

“After a constitutional deadline and a self-imposed political deadline were exceeded, we found ourselves before a difficult situation. However, we decided to participate in the sessions of September 9 and 11, but they did not bring a solution either. When we realized that beyond the violations of deadlines, institutions and citizens were being mocked through absurd sessions and empty justifications, we decided to address the Constitutional Court. Although it has a ruling on this matter and we had hesitated, now that the power has completely gone out of constitutional control, we had no other way,” Gruda declared.

He referred to a legal principle according to which no one can benefit from their own violations. “The Vetëvendosje Movement cannot violate all the deadlines and ultimately profit from these actions. A precedent cannot be set where a political entity replaces constitutional deadlines with its own. No majority, however large, is above the Constitution,” he stressed.

Gruda underlined that the role of the Constitution is to limit power and warned that the following day another request would be filed, this time regarding the election of the new government. He argued that if the Assembly was formed in contradiction with the fundamental law, then all decisions emanating from it are constitutionally vulnerable. “Tomorrow we will also contest the formation of the Government. We cannot continue to allow the Assembly to elect the main organs of the state while creating deep constitutional dilemmas and undermining legitimacy,” he added, concluding that in a constitutional democracy, legitimacy does not simply stem from the number of votes, but from rigorous respect for the Constitution.

Lawyer Faton Fetahu detailed the three main points of the request submitted to the Constitutional Court. According to him, they concern the process of electing the Assembly speaker, the change in the voting procedure for deputy speakers, and the fact that the Assembly was declared constituted without having a member of the Presidency from the second-largest parliamentary group.

Fetahu emphasized PDK’s stance that the Assembly has not been constituted in accordance with the Constitution, its Rules of Procedure, and the judicial practice of the Constitutional Court. He argued that the physical absence of PDK deputies from the hall during the vote for the Presidency members does not constitute a waiver of their right to propose candidates. He added that the PDK parliamentary group has consistently requested the holding of the session throughout the period when there were no attempts to do so, and that the case should be viewed in its entirety, not solely through the prism of participation in a single session.

Finally, Fetahu expressed confidence that the court would accept the request and would quickly impose an interim measure, aiming to avoid what he described as irreparable damage to the public interest. “We expect this case to be confirmed by the Constitutional Court as a constitutional violation and the request to be declared admissible. Above all, it is imperative that the interim measure be imposed as soon as possible,” he concluded.