Rapajic: Osmani’s decision very strange, shows disrespect for the Constitutional Court

Aleksandar Rapajic, Program Director of the NGO Center for the Promotion of Democratic Culture in North Mitrovica, commented on the decision of Kosovo President Vjosa Osmani to withdraw her request from the Constitutional Court of Kosovo because of a Serbian judge, describing the move as a "very strange decision" that demonstrates disrespect for the Constitutional Court, while also having an ethnic undertone.

“This decision is very strange. The Constitutional Court is an independent body, and no institution under the Constitution of Kosovo is allowed to exert any kind of pressure on it,” Rapajic told Kosovo Online.

Osmani announced yesterday at an emergency press conference that she is withdrawing her request from July 22, submitted to the Constitutional Court regarding the constitutive session of the Kosovo Assembly.

She explained her reasoning as a "direct reaction" to the appointment of Serbian judge Radomir Laban as the reporting judge in the case.

“If you are addressing an institution, you don’t have the right to say whether you like someone appointed by that institution or not. The Constitutional Court has nine judges, and they are all equal,” Rapajic explained.

He emphasized that it is irrelevant who was appointed as the reporting judge, because that judge does not make the final decision.

“The final decision is made by the entire Constitutional Court by a majority vote. The reporting judge who prepares the case does have some power to guide the case in a certain direction, but ultimately the Constitutional Court as a whole makes the decision. The President’s stance in this case shows disrespect toward the Constitutional Court,” Rapajic stated.

Asked what might be the reasons behind Osmani’s decision beyond what she stated at the press conference, Rapajic said that representatives of non-majority communities in the Constitutional Court serve as a “protective mechanism.”

“It is very strange that the President is complaining about the fact that a representative of a non-majority community was assigned to lead such a case. The Constitutional Court is required to have at least two representatives from non-majority communities as a form of protective mechanism, and I believe this situation takes on a certain ethnic dimension,” Rapajic concluded.