According to the Supreme Court’s ruling, the first- and second-instance courts had not properly applied Article 41 of the Criminal Code, which concerns the imposition of life imprisonment.

“Some of the circumstances considered particularly aggravating were not supported by evidence, while some of them constitute elements of the criminal offence itself and, for this reason, cannot justify the imposition of the most severe sentence provided by law.

The time spent in pre-trial detention since 16 April 2024 will also be counted towards the sentence.

In all other respects, the judgments of the Basic Court in Peja and the Court of Appeals remain unchanged,” the statement said.

The Supreme Court stressed that a life prison sentence may be imposed only when there are particularly aggravating circumstances that clearly distinguish a case from ordinary cases involving the same criminal offence. According to the court, such a measure should be imposed when a lighter sentence would not be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of the perpetrator’s guilt.

“In this case, the Supreme Court found that this legal standard had not been met,” the ruling said.

Referring to the principles of individualisation and proportionality of punishment, as well as the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the Supreme Court concluded that a 30-year prison sentence corresponds to the gravity of the criminal offence, the degree of guilt and the dangerousness of the defendant. According to the court, this sentence can fulfil the punitive purpose, both in terms of individual and general prevention.

Gjyljeta Ukella’s family had requested that Edmond Lajçi’s life prison sentence remain in force.

The indictment states that on 16 April 2024, at around 08:00, in his apartment on Bill Clinton Street in Peja, Edmond Lajçi intentionally took the life of his wife, the late Gjyljeta Ukella, using a pistol.

According to the indictment, the defendant had ongoing problems with the victim and had also subjected her to psychological violence. One day before the incident, he had gone to the hospital, where he stayed with his mother, who was receiving treatment for an illness. In the morning, he returned to the apartment, where their daughter, T., was also present. He asked her to go to the shop to buy something, intending to be left alone with the victim.

As described in the indictment, while Gjyljeta Ukella was sitting on the bed in the apartment’s living room, the defendant fired at her.

The post Supreme Court commutes Edmond Lajçi’s life sentence to 30 years in prison for murdering his wife appeared first on Albeu.com.

With this ruling, the Supreme Court has partially affected the previous 2011 practice, setting new criteria that provide greater protection for individual liberty and limit the automatic use of the measure of “pretrial detention.”

Three pillars of the new ruling

The review of judicial practice is based on three fundamental principles, which courts must now apply mandatorily:

1. The obligation to conduct a real review of alternatives: The court can no longer be satisfied with the reasoning that “pretrial detention” is the appropriate measure. It is required to clearly explain why lighter measures, such as house arrest or the obligation to appear, are not sufficient in the specific case.

2. Dangerousness is not presumed from the offense itself: The United Chambers rejected the practice under which “pretrial detention” was imposed automatically for serious offenses or when the prescribed sentence was high. Now, specific risk must be proven through an individual assessment, taking into account the offender’s personality, conduct, as well as family and health circumstances.

3. The burden of proof lies with the Prosecution: Unlike before, the person under investigation is no longer required to provide “positive evidence” to deserve freedom. It is now the prosecuting body that must support with concrete facts why the person’s freedom poses a risk and why no other measure can prevent that risk.

This unifying ruling was issued in the framework of reviewing the case of citizen Begtash Zeneli, in whose home 7 kilograms and 350 grams of the narcotic substance cannabis sativa were discovered during a search. Although the Prosecution insistently requested “pretrial detention,” the Court of Appeal imposed “house arrest,” taking into account his age of 63, the fact that he had been legally rehabilitated, and his wife’s serious health condition.

After reviewing the prosecutor’s appeal, the Supreme Court decided to uphold the measure of “house arrest.” According to the chambers, although the offense carries a high degree of dangerousness, this cannot automatically prevail over the suspect’s specific human circumstances if the real risk of flight or repetition of the criminal offense is not proven.

In its reasoning, the Supreme Court underlined that this new approach is necessary to bring Albanian justice closer to the standards of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). According to the ruling, “pretrial detention” must always remain the “ultima ratio” (last resort), since the presumption must in every case be in favor of liberty.

The ruling has been sent for publication in the Official Gazette and is expected to have an immediate effect in all courts across the country, raising the standard of reasoning for any restriction on personal liberty.

The post Supreme Court publishes unifying ruling on personal security measures, prosecution bears burden of proof appeared first on Albeu.com.

The Supreme Court said these complaints are still under review and that decisions will be completed within the deadline set by law.

“We inform you that the administrative complaints submitted to the Supreme Court against the decisions of the Electoral Panel for Complaints and Submissions-PZAP are under review. The decisions will be taken within the legal deadline of five days from the date the complaints were received.”

The Central Election Commission is also awaiting these decisions. CEC spokesperson Valmir Elezi said that if the Supreme Court rulings do not contain obligations for the CEC, then the institution will immediately proceed with certifying the final results. If the opposite happens, the obligations set by the Court will first be implemented, and only then will certification take place.

According to assessments by election process monitors, with the conclusion of the review of complaints by the Supreme Court, the legal remedies phase also ends, paving the way for the certification of the results. After this phase, neither political entities nor candidates can file any further complaints regarding the election result.

“We have interpretations and decisions of Kosovo’s Constitutional Court which have made it clear that the 30-day deadline for constituting the Assembly must begin to be counted from the day the election result is certified, and I expect the deputies of the Assembly of Kosovo, at the moment the election results are certified, to convene and consequently constitute the Assembly of Kosovo as quickly as possible because this 30-day deadline obliges them not only to schedule the session but also to complete the session within this deadline,” said Vullnet Bugaqku of the Kosovo Democratic Institute.

Bugaqku said it is still not clear what the legal consequences would be if this deadline is not respected, since this is not specified either in the Constitution or in the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure.

At this moment, the Supreme Court is reviewing the complaints of the Serb List, the New Democratic Party, as well as those of the two PDK candidates for deputy, Bekim Haxhiu and Qëndrim Kryeziu.

The post Five complaints over the June 7 results are still being reviewed by the Supreme Court appeared first on Albeu.com.

As Elezi explained, if these decisions do not impose obligations on the CEC, then the certification of the results can proceed. He stressed that if the decisions contain obligations for the CEC, what is required will first be implemented and only then will the certification of the results move forward.

On 27.06.2026, the CEC published the final results of the parliamentary elections held on June 7.

According to these results, the Vetëvendosje Movement ranked first with 47.13% of the vote. The Democratic Party of Kosovo received 19.44% of the vote, while the Democratic League of Kosovo won 16.69% of the vote.

The Alliance for the Future of Kosovo secured 6.74% of the vote and seven mandates, while the Serb List received 5.40% of the vote.

The post Elezi: CEC awaiting Supreme Court decisions on certification of results appeared first on Albeu.com.

The ruling states that the Ministry of Justice, through the State Advocacy Office as its authorized representative, filed the lawsuit against the Kosovo Bar Association on June 12, 2026, reports “Oath for Justice”.

During the preliminary review, the Supreme Court found that the lawsuit submitted was neither clear nor understandable regarding the act being challenged, which according to the court made any further assessment of its merits impossible. For this reason, the Ministry of Justice had been ordered to correct and supplement the lawsuit.

Later, through a submission dated June 18, 2026, the plaintiff supplemented and clarified the statement of claim, asking the Supreme Court to annul as unlawful the amount of the registration costs set by the Kosovo Bar Association.

However, the Supreme Court found that this matter does not fall within its subject-matter jurisdiction.

“During the preliminary review of the lawsuit, it was established that the act contested by the plaintiff in this administrative matter is not a sub-legal act, specifically not an act issued on the basis of the express authorization of a law adopted by the Assembly, as also defined by the provisions of the LCA,” the decision states.

According to the Supreme Court’s reasoning, the lawsuit seeks the annulment of the amount of the registration costs, but these costs are set out in the “Request for registration in the register of lawyers”, which, according to the court, does not meet the conditions to be considered a normative sub-legal act.

“Under Article 10, paragraph 4 of the LCA, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction to examine only: revisions filed against judgments of the second-instance court, which are submitted to the first-instance court, and lawsuits for the annulment of normative sub-legal acts, which are filed directly with this court. Therefore, from the content of the lawsuit it does not appear that the case concerns any normative sub-legal act, nor any revision,” the decision further states.

As a result, the court concluded that the contested act does not contain the elements of a normative sub-legal act. Consequently, the general and specific conditions for further examination were not met, including this court’s legal jurisdiction, while there is also no judgment or case that could be addressed through an extraordinary legal remedy. In these circumstances, the lawsuit was dismissed as inadmissible.

“The Supreme Court, with reference to Article 10, paragraph 4 of the LCA, assessed that this court adjudicates on revision and, as a court of first and sole instance, on claims for the annulment of a normative sub-legal act, while all other lawsuits are adjudicated by the first-instance court as the competent court,” the decision states.

Following this decision, the Kosovo Bar Association also reacted, stating that the Government’s attempt to call the Bar Association’s acts into question did not pass even the initial stage of procedural admissibility.

“The Kosovo Bar Association will not recognize and will not implement any decision, act, or order issued by bodies acting outside their legal competences. Any such intervention is legally unfounded and produces no legal consequences for the Bar Association,” the reaction states.

The post Supreme Court Declares Ministry of Justice’s Lawsuit Against the Bar Association Over Registration Fees Inadmissible appeared first on Albeu.com.

According to the Supreme Court’s assessment, the Electoral Complaints and Appeals Panel (ECAP) acted correctly when it rejected Kryeziu’s complaint.

Kryeziu had turned to the Supreme Court with an appeal seeking a full recount, within his political entity, of the preferential votes from the June 7 elections.

He had argued that the recount previously ordered by the Central Election Commission (CEC) had identified inaccuracies in the initial counting of votes at the municipal counting centers.

“Consequently, the Supreme Court assesses that the ECAP decided correctly in rejecting the complaint of the appellant, candidate for deputy of the Assembly of Kosovo Qëndrim Kryeziu, from the Political Subject Democratic Party of Kosovo (PDK), by referring to the provision of Article 118.1 of the LGE, which stipulates that: ‘The ECAP accepts complaints based on facts and rejects complaints which do not meet the previously approved criteria,’ and Article 13 paragraph 4 of Regulation No. 01/2025 on the Procedures for Submitting and Deciding ECAP Complaints, which stipulates that: ‘The ECAP may generally reject a complaint or group of 6 complaints if they do not present prima facie cases or where the complaint or group of complaints is clearly unfounded.’ Also, Article 117.3 of the LGE stipulates that: ‘Decisions on complaints by the ECAP are based on clear and convincing evidence.’”

“On this basis, this court assessed as unfounded the above-mentioned claims that the ECAP rejected the appellant’s complaint by neglecting the principle of the integrity of the electoral process, referring to the lack of accuracy of the votes won by the candidate, because in the specific case no clear and convincing evidence was presented for the alleged violations, and therefore the ECAP rightly rejected the complaint as unfounded. Based on the established factual situation, this Court found that in this legal matter, the factual situation was correctly established and the law was not violated to the detriment of the complainant, therefore, the appeal claims were rejected as unfounded. This is because, as such, they did not prove that they met the grounds on which an appeal may be filed in order to present new facts by the interested party, and no procedural violations or factual errors were found that would affect the rights of the party or the legality of the procedure,” the Supreme Court’s ruling states.

The post Supreme Court rejects Qëndrim Kryeziu’s appeal for a full recount of preferential votes in the PDK appeared first on Albeu.com.