The Legislation Committee has reviewed the Draft Law on the State Bureau for the Verification and Confiscation of Unjustified Assets, which has been accompanied by clashes between the government and the opposition over its procedures and content, reports Ekonomia Online.
The Minister of Justice, Donika Gërvalla, said that this draft law aims to increase citizens' trust in justice and strengthen mechanisms against unjustified wealth, emphasizing that it is in line with international standards and recommendations of relevant institutions.
"It will increase citizens' access to and trust in justice. The State Bureau for the Verification and Confiscation of Unjustified Assets is a vital mechanism, it is the main instrument to ensure that the assets of public officials are verifiable and in line with legal income. In addition to guaranteeing that assets created in violation of legal income will be confiscated and returned to the state, the law also contributes to removing suspicions about the assets and officials who have created such assets legally," she said.
She added that the draft law has gone through three opinions of the Venice Commission and two reviews by the Constitutional Court of Kosovo, emphasizing that civil confiscation has been confirmed as a legal instrument.
“During this process, the law has gone through three opinions of the Venice Commission and two reviews of the Constitutional Court. None of these institutions and mechanisms has contested the concept of civil confiscation as a legitimate instrument. On the contrary, they have confirmed civil-based confiscation by recommending improvements in clarity, proportionality and procedural guarantees.
"All of this has already been reflected in the text before you and which has also been confirmed by the accompanying opinion of the Venice Commission," she said.
The Chairman of the Legislation Committee, Përparim Gruda, raised concerns about the lack of public consultation and the time frame of the law.
"If the court has returned it to zero, this means that the law starts from zero, requires public consultation and all that. I think it is a mistake that we did not have public consultation in the necessary phase before approval by the government. The second issue I wanted to mention is the issue of the time extension of the law. I think that it is a very long period, and the Constitutional Court also said in the first decision that it could be problematic, because there are many laws in Kosovo that regulate the preservation of documentation. I agree with what the minister said, that civil confiscation is also considered by the Venice Commission as a standard that is possible to implement, but nevertheless I think that taking into account the specifics of the country is necessary, because it is a new country and the institutions and laws, the documents are in the initial phase where I think that this aspect is fundamentally important to take into account when we have this," he said.
Asked about the lack of public consultation, Gërvalla said that such a thing was not considered necessary at this stage.
"We have received the recommendation from our legal department but also from the OPM that a new public discussion is not necessary," she said.
VV MP, Vigan Qorrolli, supported the draft law, describing it as necessary for the institutional system and in line with constitutional and international standards.
He listed six criteria that, according to him, the draft law meets, including addressing Constitutional Court decisions, proportionality, legal guarantees, and legal clarity.
"Since I myself was part of the Ministry of Justice, I consider that this law, in addition to the proper treatment and strong professional hand, has also had a contribution from all actors, and in this case we must always appreciate the contribution of the people who worked on this law, because as I said it is vitally valuable for our institutional architecture. I have six theses that I believe should be in this spirit that the law should be approved if it meets this standard of the Constitutional Court itself, but above all of the Venice Commission, and first of all of the European Convention on Human Rights and Freedoms, in the sense of the Strasbourg jurisprudence," he said.
"First, whether the current draft law before us addresses the main findings of the two Constitutional Court judgments, with particular emphasis on the first judgment. And second, whether this law has a legitimate purpose and is proportionate."
Third, whether the draft law above all provides sufficient legal guarantees for the protection of individuals' rights. Fourth, whether this law provides clarity and predictability in terms of legal certainty. Fifth, the impact of procedural deadlines on the efficiency of the judicial system.
And the sixth is the combination of the Bureau's competencies with the existing institutions in the Republic of Kosovo. In my judgment, this law fulfills all six conditions that I raised in the form of theses in a complementary manner, with special emphasis on the legitimate purpose and proportionality of the law", he said.
On the other hand, AAK MP Besnik Tahiri stressed that the lack of public consultation and the risk of being overturned by the Constitutional Court remain serious concerns.
"Strengthening the fight against corruption and reforming the judiciary are two conditions for this country to move forward. There are two problems that I want to address: first, reforms in the judiciary are subject to two fundamental principles, the principle of constitutionality and the principle of institutional accountability, which I think will be a major obstacle to this law. Public consultation of this law is vital and legal; the Ministry of Justice must be subject to laws that oblige it to have a public consultation. The second issue is that we have a decision of the Constitution that is in a preliminary case, which clearly states that public consultation is mandatory and is important. I see the consultation process as important, I see it as important if there is a serious confrontation and ultimately for the citizens. Do not create instruments that can be overturned in the Constitutional Court," he said.
Meanwhile, PDK MP, Blerta Deliu, criticized the expedited procedure and the lack of full consideration of the Constitutional Court's findings.
"While today we are talking about a new draft law, with some cosmetic changes, which has not addressed all the findings of the Constitutional Court. This has also been said by representatives of civil society, who in recent days have criticized the government for its approach, because first of all, why were the regular procedures foreseen in the rules of procedure of the Assembly not followed? Why should the same come to the Assembly with an accelerated procedure? So, we will need to vote in the Assembly to change the procedures, since we have had the opportunity to treat the same law with the regular deadlines, subjecting it to a regular public discussion, where civil society would also be present and of course we would discuss it in detail. First of all, Madam Minister, as a deputy I would like to ask you not to use the same narrative, because there is no tendency today for a law that aims to fight organized crime, corruption, to be brought to the Constitutional Court and how "In such a way that the recommendations of the relevant institutions are not taken into account and the law is not in harmony with the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo. I do not believe that you will use it for the election campaign and turn it into an electoral campaign," she said.
In response, Minister Gërvalla said that the law has not been changed from the previous version and that the institutions' remarks have been addressed, while adding that the draft law does not affect citizens who are not public officials.
"We are starting from the end, noting that we postponed the elections to December of last year. We are not in an election campaign, we have a very critical and very important phase of approving very important laws, among them the law initiated in 2021, which is still being discussed in 2026 as if it had never passed the Assembly, as if it had never passed the Constitutional Court, and as if we are now starting to seek the opinions of the Venice Commission and others. Many of the issues mentioned have been raised in the past, have been answered by both the Constitutional Court and the Venice Commission, and conclusions have been drawn by the Ministry of Justice, and the wording in the relevant articles has been changed where necessary. It is true that the law in this form that is presented today is a law that has been amended from the one that was in , but in relation to the law that passed the Assembly in 2024, there is no change. There are not only cosmetic changes that do not exist, there is no change at all. It is that law that passed through the Assembly in 2024 and the Constitutional Court expressed its observations on the manner and procedure in which that law was approved.
"That's why there was no public discussion, and that's why I very much welcomed the opportunity for us to have a discussion between the two readings, in order to remove any dilemmas we have," she said.
t7 live
