Constitutional Court

The Applicants submitted request pursuant to Article 113.5 of the Constitution, stating that the Decision No. 04-V-279, dated 20 January 2012 of the Assembly of the Republic of Kosovo was in contradiction with Article 18 of the Constitution. The Applicants stated that the Assembly of the Republic of Kosovo, by the abovementioned decision welcomed the agreements reached in the dialogue between the Government of the Republic of Kosovo and of the Republic of Serbia in contrary to the Constitution. The Applicants also stated that Kosovo and Serbia are two countries with legal subjectivity in the international law, and as a result, the agreements between them are international agreements as foreseen by the Article 3.1.5 of the Law No. 04/L-052 on international agreements. The Applicants cited in entirety the Article 18 of the Constitution regarding the ratification of the international agreements. They stated that through ‘welcoming of the reached agreements’ and through ‘the supporting of their full implementation’, the Assembly of the Republic of Kosovo has recognized and ratified these agreements as well it has undertaken the obligations that derive from these agreements. The Applicants claimed that the Assembly should have adopted a ratification procedure under Article 18 of the Constitution.

The Court required additional explanations from the Applicants regarding the substance of their Referral, filed in the Court. The Court concluded that the Applicants were the authorized party pursuant to Article 113.5 of the Constitution, because the Referral was submitted within legal time limit and the legal requirement regarding the number of deputies, who may challenged the decisions of the Assembly, by their substance and followed procedure, was met.

The Court concluded that the Applicants have not specified the Referral pursuant to Article 113.5 of the Constitution in conjunction with Article 42 of the Law on Constitutional Court, respectively, the Applicants did not specify in which way they challenged the decision of the Assembly, either the substance or the followed procedure. The Court further reasoned that the Applicants challenge more the nature of the decision of the Assembly and request interpretation more than the substance and the followed procedure. Reviewing the Referral in entirety, the Court emphasized that the Court is mindful of the doctrine of the separation of powers, as provided for in Article 4 of the Constitution and of the competences of the Assembly, which implies that it is up to the Assembly to take such decisions as it considers appropriate or necessary. For these reasons, Court concluded that the Referral, is inadmissible because it is incompatible ratione materiae with the Constitution.