Andric Rakic: The Constitutional Court’s Decision does not mean the end of the political crisis

Program Manager of the NGO “Social Initiative,” Milica Andric Rakic, stated for Kosovo Online that the Constitutional Court’s decision regarding the constitution of the Kosovo Assembly is final and legally binding, but that in itself does not mean the political crisis will be resolved.

“The decision is final, so there is little room to alter what the Constitutional Court has said. But, of course, that does not mean the political crisis will be solved, because it did not arise from unclear procedures, but from someone abusing the procedures, pretending they were unclear, in order to use the Court to prolong the constitution of the Assembly,” Andric Rakic explained.

She emphasized that if there is again no political will to resolve the institutional crisis and establish the Assembly, new attempts at blocking are possible. However, she noted that any such move would now be clearly recognized as unserious and irresponsible.

“They might perhaps come up with some new, creative ways to block the Assembly, but whoever does so will truly appear unprofessional – I would even say childish – because from this point on, it is more than clear that only someone with very malicious intent could continue blocking the constitution of the Assembly, or its constitution merely to trigger new elections,” she said.

Discussing the decision itself, Andric Rakic pointed out that the Constitutional Court determined the Kosovo Assembly is not constituted unless a deputy speaker from the Serbian community is elected, thereby protecting the rights of that community.

“For now, that is all we know. We have not seen the full reasoning of the decision, where there may be additional details regarding the election of the deputy speaker from the Serbian community and that procedure. Those clarifications could be important for other community rights as well,” she explained.

She also referred to the part of the Constitutional Court’s statement concerning compliance with the Assembly’s Rules of Procedure, which could affect the legitimacy of the election of Emilija Redžepi, who, she noted, was elected contrary to the rules—individually rather than as part of a package with the Serbian candidate.

“That potentially means that the election of Emilija Rexhepi, who was chosen individually instead of together with the Serbian candidate as required by the Rules of Procedure, may be challenged. But we cannot say for sure until we see the full decision and the Court’s reasoning,” Andric Rakic said.

Commenting on Self-Determination’s position, which announced it would not support the election of a deputy speaker from Srpska Lista, she remarked that such an election could still take place if there is will among other political blocs.

“Regardless of whether they vote for the Serbian representative or not, they can, in principle, respect the decision and acknowledge that the Assembly is not constituted. As for the pragmatic aspect, even if Self-Determination does not vote, there are still enough MPs in the other bloc to elect the Serbian representative. We will see what their stance will be from a principled perspective,” she stressed.

She concluded that a final assessment of the situation requires waiting for the publication of the complete Constitutional Court decision, which could bring further clarifications, including possible mechanisms for overcoming the political deadlock.

“We need to see the full decision of the Constitutional Court—whether 61 votes are really necessary, or whether it might propose another modality if all voting methods are exhausted. Otherwise, the Court may state that if a deputy speaker is not elected, the Assembly is automatically dissolved. The Assembly cannot be considered constituted until all deputy speakers are elected, including the deputy speaker representing the Serbian community. We simply do not know yet; these are all matters we still need to learn,” Andric Rakic concluded.