Kosovo Republic Ombudsperson has received the Ruling of the Constitutional Court on 13 November 2014, concerning inadmissibility of the request regarding President’s Decree no. DKGJK – 001 – 2014, of the date 31 August 2014, on confirmation of mandate extension for three international judges of Kosovo Constitutional Court.

Based on constitutional determination, the Ombudsperson, considers the Ruling of Constitutional Court, as a last word in terms of legal hierarchy. But, this Ruling is not and should not be the last word of the public debate.

The Ombudsperson has thoroughly analyzed this Ruling submitted by the Constitutional Court with the same attention as the request regarding the case has been complied. Detailed analyses (attached to this statement) pose legal omissions as well as complete lack of reasoning in this Ruling.

In substantial aspect, the vivid example of lack of reasoning is exposed in the Court’s allegations on Ruling that President’s Decree is in line with that which is requested with the international agreement content (see Ruling, paragraph 41). This Court’s allegation is not associated with any evidence, without referring to any specific provision agreement, on which Court claims to be based on, as well as does not response to any argument set forth by the Ombudsperson regarding this issue.

The issue addressed to the Constitutional Court through the request submitted by the Ombudsperson consists specifically on the ground if nonconformity of President’s Decree from relevant constitutional provisions is really in line with what is requested in the content of international agreement. The Ombudsperson has disputed this fact with lengthy and succinct legal reasoning upon his request.[1] The fact that the Court has decided to handle the main issue of a case with a very short paragraph, without any reasoning or citation, without providing any answer to requested argument on this issue, poses scarce and poor legal drafting, as well as disregard of accurate and impartial standards of judgment.

Within the scope of legal, intellectual and institutional liability for reasoning of decisions, Constitutional Court is also bind with verifiable standards. This Court’s liability corresponds with the right of lodger’s request to speak about the case.  The Ombudsperson as a submitter of the case in this process has the subjective right to request from the Court, not solely to obtain reasoned decision, but also when reasoning the decision to keep close to the normative text, legitimated democratically. With such Ruling in hand, the Ombudsperson not only is entrusted with the right but it is his duty also to draw public’s attention and open public debates concerning weak judicial performance of the highest Court in the country as well as of President’s Decree.