Constitutional Court

KO124/19, Applicant: The Prime Minister of the Republic of Kosovo, Referral for interpretation of the act of resignation of the Prime Minister of the Republic of Kosovo and definition of the competencies and functioning of the Government after the resignation of the Prime Minister 

KO124 / 19, Resolution adopted on 4 September 2019, published on 16 September 2019

Keywords: institutional referral, government competencies, constitutional issue, resignation of prime minister, constitutional court jurisdiction, inadmissible referral.

The Applicant based on Article 93 (10) [Competencies of the Government] of the Constitution submitted a question about the interpretation of the act of resignation of the Prime Minister of the Republic of Kosovo and the definition of the competences and functioning of the Government after the resignation of the Prime Minister.

The Court first referred to its newest jurisprudence with respect to the legal questions submitted by the Applicant. The Court considered that it should be assessed whether the Applicant’s Referral based on Article 93 (10) is justified within the jurisdiction of the Court set out in Article 113 [Jurisdiction and Authorized Parties] of the Constitution.

The Court also noted that the present Referral pursuant to Article 93 (10), as well as other similar Referrals previously submitted pursuant to Article 84 (9) [Competencies of the President] of the Constitution, must necessarily be reasoned within the jurisdiction of the Court set forth in Article 113 of the Constitution.

In this regard, the Court reiterated that the content of the provision of Article 113 of the Constitution, taken in its entirety, is clear and concrete as to the competencies of the Government arising from the context of the authorized party in the Constitutional Court. Consequently, despite the need that may arise in practice for interpreting other matters relevant to the competences of the Government, it results that Article 113 of the Constitution constitutes the fundamental and sole jurisdictional basis of the Constitutional Court in relation to the competencies of the Government to refer cases to the Constitutional Court as an authorized party.

The Court further stated that the submitted referral, following the resignation of the Prime Minister, could only be raised under Article 113, paragraph 2, where the authorized parties could dispute in the Court matters relating to compliance with the Constitution of the decrees of the Prime Minister, and of Government regulations or pursuant to Article 113, paragraph 3, as matters relating to situations of conflict of constitutional competencies of the Assembly, the President and the Government.

In view of what is stated above, the Court concluded that the issues raised by the Applicant do not fall within the scope of the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court, as set out in Article 113 of the Constitution and, therefore, despite their importance and the legitimate dilemmas they may raise, the Court cannot provide answers to questions raised as long as they have not been submitted to the Court under the procedures provided for by the Constitution.

Consequently, the Court concluded that the Applicant’s Referral is inadmissible because it does not fall within the limits of its jurisdiction provided for in Article 113, paragraph 1, of the Constitution.