A hearing was held at the Supreme Court on Wednesday in the case where prosecutor Merita Kurtishi-Gaka sued the Kosovo Prosecutorial Council (KPK), requesting the annulment of several provisions of the Regulation on the election of prosecutorial members of the Council.

According to the lawsuit submitted to the Supreme Court, the Department for Administrative Affairs, through the lawsuit, the annulment of Article 5, paragraph 1 and 2, as well as Article 10, paragraph 11 and 12 of the KPC Regulation NR/05/2025 dated September 3, 2025 on the election of prosecutorial members of the Kosovo Prosecutorial Council is requested, reports "Oath for Justice".

In his opening statement, the representative of plaintiff Kurtishi-Gaka, attorney Driton Muharremi, said that the provisions he seeks to repeal are contrary to the Constitution.

"On behalf of the plaintiff, we present in a concise manner the subject of the lawsuit, which seeks the annulment of the legal provisions. The same were approved and implemented in violation of the Constitution of Kosovo," said lawyer Muharremi.

In addition, lawyer Muharremi emphasized that the Regulation in question is also contrary to several principles.

"Violation of the principle of legality, legal acts. Inconsistency of laws. Violation of the Constitution, equality and participation. Objections to discrimination standards and public administration standards," emphasized lawyer Muharremi.

Meanwhile, the representative of the defendant - the Kosovo Prosecutorial Council, Sami Istrefi, in his opening statement emphasized that he remains committed to the response to the lawsuit and continued by opposing the proposal for a temporary security measure.

"We fully stand by the response to the lawsuit and oppose the lawsuit as unfounded. We also oppose the proposal for a temporary security measure. Initially, regarding the proposal for the determination of a temporary security measure, the plaintiff referred to Article 99, paragraphs one and two of the Law on Administrative Conflict, for the determination of a temporary security measure. However, since it is actually issued only for a request for a security measure under paragraph 1, which concerns the security measure, in cases of a lawsuit for the annulment of an administrative act, the plaintiff fails to argue any grounds under paragraph two and is not even issued in the justification of why she is requesting the security measure," emphasized Istrefi.

According to him, for the determination of the security measure, two cumulative conditions must be met, which the plaintiff, according to him, has failed to argue.

"According to Article 100, paragraph one of the LKA, in order for a security measure to be imposed, in the case of a lawsuit for the annulment of a sub-legal act, two cumulative conditions must be met: 1. Taking the security measure is necessary to avoid serious irreversible damage to the interests of the proposer of the measure and 2. Taking the security measure does not seriously violate the legal and public interest. The plaintiff has failed to argue both of these cumulative conditions of the security measure," concluded Istrefi.

While the representative of the interested party - Elza Bajrami-Kastrati, lawyer Kujtim Kërveshi submitted his written statement, during which he said that this process is being deliberately delayed.

"In the last four or five months, we have witnessed a deliberately delayed process, these malicious actions are proven on the date of submission of this lawsuit," said Kërveshi.

Kërveshi said that the plaintiff lost the race for member of the KPK.

"The plaintiff lost the race for members of the KPK, on ​​November 1, 2025, after four months of sagas that we have seen in public, of discussions and actions, which, in the eyes of independent observers, bring to a minimum the trust in justice bodies such as the KPK. A month ago we had another lawsuit presented before you, the filing of this lawsuit. But, even the filing of lawsuits must be based on professional ethics," Kerveshi continued.

Regarding discrimination, Kërveshi emphasized that the procedure is in order for both parties.

"The first issue was discrimination. As in this lawsuit, as in the lawsuit we heard a month ago, which is the discriminated category? Two candidates participated in the race. Since the gender is the same, what is the basis for discrimination? The second issue, equality of votes was raised, due to the limitation of voting at the level. How can this be translated legally? The plaintiff, after having lost the race after having participated without opposition, in this regulation, on these established rules, after four months files a lawsuit for the process that has lost the race. What is the basic principle violated in participation? The same procedure, the same rule, for both parties," Kerveshi concluded.

The presiding judge, Faton Ademi, after the introductory speech, continued with the procedure of administering evidence. Afterwards, the final word was given by the parties in the proceedings.

Lawyer Muharremi said in his closing statement that there was nothing malicious, as the other party's lawyer had previously said.

"Regarding the introductory speech of the KPK representative, it was about the measure, while the rest was about the drafting of the regulation and the law, but there was no claim that would counter-argue everything I said. As for the other representative, I am sorry that he brought the narrative as if it were personal and there is nothing personal or malicious here," said Muharremi. /Oath for Justice/

justiceKosovoNews