SummaryThe article examines the constitutional position of the president of republic in the view of the appointment procedure established in Hamiti et al and Derguti et al. Both constitutional court decisions have construed a rhetorical interpretation of the expected role of the president of republic as representative of the unity of the people in a constitutional nutshell. The article questions both decisions’ structural rationality and legitimacy in what is likely a tough political controversy requiring two-third majority for the appointment of the president of republic in the first two rounds. To better designate the logic upon which the court relied when ruling in the two decisions, the article considers relevant comparative literature and case-law to channel the analysis. The article concludes that though the court demonstrated a rather activist tone in interpreting the procedure for the appointment of the president of republic, it also showed quite unprecedented willingness to constitutionally empower the position of the president of republic on basis of appointment-related preconditions.

In August 2015 the Assembly of Kosovo, following an international request, passed constitutional amendments and the Law on Specialist Chambers and Specialist Prosecutor’s Office [‘the Law’], marking the legal foundation of the Kosovo Specialist Chambers and the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office (‘the Specialist Chambers’). However, what has sparked widespread reaction in Kosovo is the narrow jurisdiction of the Specialist Chambers. Therefore, this article argues first that the Specialist Chambers have mono-ethnic jurisdiction, being charged with investigating and prosecuting only one warring party and effectively granting an amnesty to the other. Next it will be argued that the current jurisdiction of the Specialist Chambers ought to be extended to cover all mass atrocities committed during and after the Kosovo war by all warring parties. Finally, the article briefly discusses the indictment against the President of Kosovo, Hashim Thaçi, and others vis-á-vis the rejection of the main allegation of the Marty Report, on organ trafficking.

No abstract

In August 2015 the Assembly of Kosovo, following an international request, passed constitutional amendments and the Law on Specialist Chambers and Specialist Prosecutor’s Office [‘the Law’], marking the legal foundation of the Kosovo Specialist Chambers and the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office (‘the Specialist Chambers’). However, what has sparked widespread reaction in Kosovo is the narrow jurisdiction of the Specialist Chambers. Therefore, this article argues first that the Specialist Chambers have mono-ethnic jurisdiction, being charged with investigating and prosecuting only one warring party and effectively granting an amnesty to the other. Next it will be argued that the current jurisdiction of the Specialist Chambers ought to be extended to cover all mass atrocities committed during and after the Kosovo war by all warring parties. Finally, the article briefly discusses the indictment against the President of Kosovo, Hashim Thaçi, and others vis-á-vis the rejection of the main allegation of the Marty Report, on organ trafficking.

This article studies the Kosovo Government decision to restrict freedom of movement vis-á-vis freedom of gathering during the Covid-19 pandemic, a restriction which has directly affected religious freedoms and practices across multiple religions. The article also addresses the decision of the Constitutional Court, which ruled that the Government’s decision was unconstitutional. The article reflects on and contextualizes the behaviors of different religious communities in Kosovo, in light of these religious restrictions in the age of Covid-19.