The Constitutional Court of the Republic of Kosovo has published today the full judgment on the case of the appeal of the Serbian List for the election of Nenad Rašić as Deputy Speaker of the Assembly of Kosovo from the Serbian community. The Constitutional Court, by majority vote, considered that this decision dated October 10, 2025 is in violation of paragraph 4 of Article 67 on the Election of the Speaker and Deputy Speakers and also in violation of subparagraph 1 of paragraph 6 and subparagraph 7 of Article 12 of the Regulation of the Assembly of Kosovo, writes Gazeta Express.
The Constitutional Court in its full decision has listed all the actions taken in the Assembly of the Republic of Kosovo when Nenad Rašić was elected Vice President. According to the Court, the activation of the lottery mechanism occurs only when the proposal of a name for Vice President is rejected.
The Constitutional Court emphasizes that Rašić was not proposed by the majority of deputies from the Serbian community and there was no refusal by deputies from the Serbian List to exercise this right.
"Consequently, the Court finds that the election of MP Mr. Nenad Rašić to the position of Deputy Speaker of the Assembly (i) did not come as a proposal from the majority of MPs from the Serb community, and (ii) there was no refusal to exercise this right by the majority of MPs from the Serb community," the decision states.
The Constitutional Court also recalls that the Assembly is considered constituted when all deputy speakers are elected.
“In this regard, the Court has emphasized through its case law that the first step in the formation of constitutional institutions after elections, as defined in the Constitution, namely after the official announcement of the election results, is the constitution of the Assembly, which, based on paragraph 1 of Article 66 of the Constitution, must be successfully completed within 30 (thirty) days from the date of the official announcement of the election results, through the fulfillment of all essential elements of the constitution, including the election of the President under paragraph 2 of Article 67 and the Vice-Presidents under paragraphs 3 and 4 of Article 67 of the Constitution (see the Court’s judgments in cases KO124/25, cited above, paragraph 93; KO193/25 and KO196/25, cited above, paragraph 97; and KO265/25, cited above, paragraph 104). 25 105. Consequently, the Court had found in its Judgment in case KO265/25, that the constitution of the Assembly ends after the election of all members of the Presidency of the Assembly, including the vice-presidents from among the deputies of communities that are not in the majority, is completed, within the 30 (thirty) day period, set out in the Constitution and confirmed in the judgments of the Court (see, mutatis mutandis, the enacting clause of the Judgment of the Court in case KO265/25)”.
The Court further explains that in the specific case, the representative of the Serbian community had verbally and in writing presented 9 candidacies for vice-president from the Serbian List and that the same candidates had participated in the vote even when Nenad Rašić's candidacy was submitted. According to the Constitution, this does not meet the conditions for activating the lottery procedure.
"In the circumstances of the specific case, the representative of the majority from among the deputies of the Serbian community, as noted above, had proposed in writing and verbally 9 (nine) candidates from among the deputies of this majority according to the procedure set forth in subparagraph 1 of paragraph 6 of Article 12 of the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly, and the same participated in the votes held on October 10, 2025, including the vote against deputy Nenad Rašić, for which the Court has also concluded that the conditions for activating the unblocking mechanism of the lottery procedure, set forth in paragraph 7 of Article 12 of the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly, were not met," the full decision states.
The Constitutional Court recalls the fact that the proposal of a candidate for vice president from the ranks of the Serbian community must be made by the majority of deputies from this community.
It also emphasizes the special importance of representing non-majority communities in the Assembly of Kosovo and in the Presidency, which do not have the necessary number of votes to be elected without the support of other MPs and members of the Presidency of the Assembly.
“The Court reiterates that based on (i) the principle of good faith cooperation; (ii) in respect of the right of proposal belonging to the majority of deputies from the Serb community/the majority of deputies from other communities that are not in the majority to propose the Deputy Speakers, it is up to the deputies to find a way to elect the President and Deputy Speakers of the Assembly, in accordance with the constitutional provisions and the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly, and to make the Assembly functional. And this, in principle, is done based on the proposals of the majority of deputies who propose candidates for Deputy Speakers from among the communities that are not in the majority. Accordingly, the right of the majority to propose a candidate for Deputy Speaker from among the communities that are not in the majority, defined and guaranteed by the Constitution, must be respected by all deputies and realized through good faith cooperation, where deputies, in the exercise of their functions, act in the best interest of the state. Furthermore, the Court reiterates "This is of particular importance for the representation of communities that are not in the majority in the Assembly and in the Presidency of the Assembly, which do not have the necessary number of votes to elect, without the support of other MPs, members of the Presidency of the Assembly," the decision further states.
The Constitutional Court considers it essential to respect the procedures and process of constituting the Assembly as defined by the Constitution and as specified in the Rules of Procedure of the Assembly, including the substantive aspect of the representation of non-majority communities.
“Both of these must be implemented and implemented in accordance with the constitutional provisions and guarantees, giving meaning to the constitutional values of democratic governance of the institutions of the Republic of Kosovo and respect for the principle of equality before the law, through the representation and participation of communities and their members in the institutions of the Republic of Kosovo. In this regard and in accordance with the requirements of paragraph 7 of Article 58 [Responsibilities of the State] of the Constitution, the Court reiterates that it is the responsibility of the majority to ensure effective representation of communities that are not in the majority in the state institutions of the Republic of Kosovo, namely in the Presidency of the Assembly. At the same time, the Court recalls that it is the responsibility of communities that are not in the majority, in the exercise of constitutional rights, to behave in accordance with the constitutional and legal requirements of the Republic of Kosovo”, emphasizes the Constitutional Court.
In point 146 of the decision, the Constitutional Court emphasizes that the unblocking mechanisms may be invoked in exceptional circumstances and for the purpose for which they were determined, namely in function of the constitution of the Assembly, taking into account the deadlines set by the Constitution, including the 30-day deadline for the constitution of the Assembly.
"This is because, in principle, proposals from parliamentary groups or MPs who enjoy the right to propose, in the spirit of trust and cooperation between MPs, should aim to achieve consensus, secure the necessary votes and result in the election of candidates as proposed and as defined in the letter and spirit of the Constitution," it is stated in this point.
edition
t7 live
