Constitutional Court

KO84/18, Applicant: Albin Kurti and 11 other deputies of the Assembly of the Republic of Kosovo, Request for constitutional review of Decision No. 06/V-145 of the Assembly of the Republic of Kosovo regarding the proposal of the Parliamentary Group of Vetëvendosje Movement! on dismissal of Aida Dërguti from the position of Vice President of the Assembly of the Republic of Kosovo

KO84/18, Judgment rendered on 3 December 2018, published on 24 December 2018

Keywords: institutional referral, Presidency of the Assembly of the Republic of Kosovo, parliamentary groups, vice president of the Assembly,

The Referral was filed by 12 (twelve) deputies of the Assembly, based on Article 113.5 of the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo.

The Applicants requested from the Constitutional Court the constitutional review of Decision No. 06/V145 of the Assembly of the Republic of Kosovo regarding the proposal of the Parliamentary Group of Vetëvendosje Movement! for the dismissal of Aida Dërguti from the position of Vice-President of the Assembly (hereinafter: the challenged decision), adopted by the Assembly on 4 June 2018. The Applicants also requested the imposition of interim measure, namely seeking “suspension of exercising the function of vice president of the Assembly of Kosovo [Aida Dërguti]”.

The Applicants alleged that the challenged decision is not in accordance with Articles 7 [Values] and 67 [Election of the President and Deputy Presidents] of the Constitution.

1. The Court initially assessed whether the submitted Referral fulfills the admissibility requirements as established in the Constitution and further specified in the Law on the Constitutional Court and in the Rules of Procedure of the Court. The Court assessed that the Referral fulfills the admissibility requirements laid down in the Constitution and further specified in the Law and foreseen in the Rules of Procedure, and raises important constitutional issues regarding the election and dismissal of the vice presidents of the Assembly. Therefore, the Court found that the Applicants’ Referral is admissible.
2. Regarding the merits of the Referral, the Court, by reviewing and addressing each allegation of the Applicants, assessed and found as follows:

First, the Court considered the allegation of the submissions of the Referral that the position of vice president of the Assembly, pursuant to Article 67, paragraph 3 of the Constitution, is reserved exclusively for the three largest parliamentary groups deriving from the political parties or coalitions that have won the majority seats in the Assembly as a result of elections for the Assembly. In this regard, the Court held that the interpretation of paragraph 3 of Article 67 of the Constitution results that holding the position of the vice president of the Assembly is not directly related and does not represent the interests of the parliamentary group that has proposed for that position in the Presidency of the Assembly. Consequently, the Court found that the allegation of the Applicants, the position of the vice president of the Assembly, pursuant to Article 67, paragraph 3 of the Constitution, is reserved exclusively for the three largest parliamentary groups deriving from the votes of political parties or coalitions that have won seats in the Assembly as a result of the elections of the Assembly, is not grounded.

Secondly, regarding the procedure followed for the dismissal of the vice president of the Assembly, the Court recalled that according to paragraph 5 of Article 67 of the Constitution, it is foreseen that the vice presidents of the Assembly are dismissed by a majority of two-thirds (2/3) of the general number of deputies. In this regard, the Court found that on 4 June 2018, after discussions in the Assembly, which took place in relation to the LVV proposal for the dismissal of Aida Dërguti from the position of vice president of the Assembly, where there were 94 (ninety four) deputies present, 16 (sixteen) deputies voted for the LVV proposal, 26 (twenty-six) deputies voted against and 47 (forty seven) deputies abstained. Consequently, the LVV proposal did not receive the necessary votes under Article 67, paragraph 5, of the Constitution, for the dismissal of Aida Dërguti from the position of the vice president of the Assembly and on this case the requirements established in Article 67, paragraph 5, that Aida Dërguti be dismissed from the position of vice president have not been met.

Thirdly, the Applicants alleged that “[r]efusal of the dismissal of the vice-president in question, which no longer represents the political power and democratic vote as the Constitution provides, is an abuse of the right to vote and violates the constitutional purpose behind the provisions governing the composition of the Presidency of the Assembly.” With regard to this allegation, the Court, referring to the constitutional provisions of the Rules of Procedure and its case law, held that the deputies are obliged to participate in the proceedings of the Assembly, including their participation in voting in accordance with the proposals submitted based on the Constitution and other related rules. However, the Court reiterated that the deputies are free to decide how they will vote in respect of proposals submitted to them and may vote for, against, or abstain, taking into account the best interest of the State in accordance with the Constitution and other rules.

In conclusion, the Court found that Decision No. 06/V-145 of the Assembly of the Republic of Kosovo regarding the proposal of the LVV Parliamentary Group regarding the dismissal of Aida Dërguti from the position of vice president of the Assembly of the Republic of Kosovo, is in compliance with Articles 7 and 67 of the Constitution.

III. Concerning the Applicants’ request for the imposition of interim measure, the Court, after finding that the challenged decision is in accordance with Articles 7 [Values] and 67 [Election of the President and Vice Presidents] of the Constitution, concluded that the Referral is without a subject of review and, as such, the request for interim measure was rejected.