Self-Determination: Constitutional Court admitted to creating a new rule, overstepping its jurisdiction was not justified

The Self-Determination Movement stated that, through its ruling on the constitution of the Assembly of Kosovo, the Constitutional Court created a new rule, adding that its justification for exceeding its jurisdiction was not warranted.

“The days of delay in publishing the decision foreshadow the impossibility of justifying an arbitrary decision that violates democracy. The narrow limits of reasoning today are the consequence of the broad excesses the Court has allowed itself,” reads Self-Determination’s reaction published on Facebook.

It was further noted that it has once again been confirmed that secret voting is not contrary to the Constitution.

“The noise of the opposition has been silenced once more. But the Court’s prejudice regarding the lack of political consensus, even though there was no secret ballot, represents a path toward blocking entities. This step brings us back to a place where no results were achieved,” the statement adds.

Self-Determination stressed that there is no basis for the analogy the Court invoked.

“The Constitution, when it comes to electing the president and vice presidents of the Assembly, clearly defines the voting rounds and the legal consequences of failing to elect within a given timeframe. The Court’s reasoning clearly contains nothing but the phrases previously used by the PDK about analogy. Based on the ‘thesis’ of analogy with elections of other institutions, it appears that the Court is preparing the ground to grant another party the right to propose a candidate after 30 days if the first party fails to elect the Speaker of the Assembly,” the statement says.

It adds that this is precisely what opposition representatives are demanding and saying, even in comments addressed to the Constitutional Court.

It is further emphasized that it is rare that the Constitutional Court did not refer to any European or world constitution, nor did it seek opinions from counterpart constitutional courts for case comparison.