Written public reprimand and 20% salary reduction to the judge who terminated the house arrest of Enver Sekiraqa

The Kosovo Judicial Council (KJC) has found judge Agim Kuçi responsible for disciplinary violations after he terminated the house arrest of Enver Sekiraqa, who is still at large, by issuing him a public written reprimand and a 20% salary reduction for a six-month period.

“For this disciplinary violation, Judge Agim Kuqi is imposed the disciplinary sanction of a public written reprimand and a temporary reduction of his salary by twenty percent (20%) for a period of six (6) months. III.

"The decision of the KJC with number KJC.nr. 124/2024, dated May 21, 2024, on the suspension of judge Agim Kuqi is revoked," the decision states.

In the decision taken on January 24, 2025, it is stated that on January 20, 2024, a request was received to initiate disciplinary investigations against this judge, alleging that he may have committed a disciplinary violation, reports Betimi për Drejtësi.

It is noted that after Sekiraqa was sentenced to 25 years in prison, his house arrest was terminated by a ruling and he was released to defend himself at liberty. Meanwhile, the Appeal had approved the appeal of the Special Prosecution and had ordered him to be detained, but it is said that Judge Kuçi had not issued an order for the execution of the Appeal ruling.

"... but the judge sent the Court of Appeals' Decision to the North Police Station via electronic mail, respectively e-mail, so that it could be personally delivered to the convicted ES. Despite the fact that the judge was notified within working hours that the defendant was not at home and had fled, he did not take any action to issue an Arrest Warrant or International Arrest Warrant to locate and detain the defendant," the decision states.

Therefore, the competent authority had requested the initiation of disciplinary investigations to determine whether the judge had committed acts contrary to the rules of the Criminal Procedure Code and the Law on Disciplinary Responsibility, proposing that he be suspended until the conclusion of the disciplinary procedure.

According to the decision, the Council established the investigative panel on May 21, 2024, and at the same meeting, Judge Kuçi was temporarily suspended from duty so that the investigative procedure could be carried out without interference. The judge appealed the suspension decision to the Supreme Court, but the latter rejected his appeal.

At the same time, it is said that the investigative panel has collected all the necessary material evidence related to the case.

The Council, on September 12, 2024, is said to have scheduled and held the hearing and that Judge Kuçi, through his defense attorney, declared that he considers himself innocent regarding the allegations raised with suspicions of disciplinary violations.

After the presentation of the report, the Council raised several issues that should have been addressed by the investigative panel, extending the investigation deadline for another two months.

The chairperson of the investigative panel, Judge Kaltrinë Haliti, at the hearing held on January 23, 2025, stated that she fully supports the supplementary report drafted in writing and submitted to the Council. The panel states that, in accordance with the instructions given by the Council, it has collected all additional material evidence. Among other things, the report on consultation and voting is also mentioned.

"Both members of the panel stated that they have been in continuous consultations during this period regarding the taking of action in this case and that this decision was taken as a panel after prior consultations regarding the same. Based on all the evidence mentioned and the materials attached to this report, I consider that the investigative panel has fulfilled the tasks assigned by the last meeting and has made available all the information that could be obtained for further action regarding this disciplinary matter," the decision states.

In this disciplinary matter, the Council administered the evidence and after the investigative process, namely the report of the investigation panel and the holding of a hearing, regarding the allegations of disciplinary violations, it found that the judge is liable for disciplinary violations.

It states that the legality of the decision-making was not examined, but rather whether the integrity of the judicial process, the integrity of the court, and whether public trust was fostered by the judge's actions were reviewed and assessed during the handling of the case in question.

Regarding the measure for the presence of the defendant in the proceedings, the KJC emphasizes that it did not assess the legality of the manner of decision, but rather assessed the manner in which the judge of the case in the capacity of the presiding judge administered the process to secure the defendant in the proceedings.

"From the evidence administered, it resulted that the presiding judge consulted with the members of the panel regarding the measure for securing the defendant in the procedure both during the procedure and in the case of the merits of the case, however, irregularities were found, namely poor administration of the process, since the advice/voting on the measure in the case of the merits was not reflected in the court's decision and was also not regularly reflected in the original judgment," the decision states.

The Council finds that irregularities related to the administration of the process in the case of meritorious decision-making on the case were also found in the procedure for drafting the original judgment, respectively in the form and content of the judgment.

According to the decision, the presiding judge followed an individual standard, but not one justified in accordance with the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As for ex-parte communication, the judge confirmed that the authorization of the defendant's defense counsel was not accepted in the protocol procedure according to the rules for communication between the parties and their representatives with the court.

Regarding the judge's negligence in ensuring the implementation of the Appeals decision, which changed the Basic Court's decision regarding the defendant's presence measure - namely the imposition of detention, the investigation report showed that in the Appeals decision, dated May 17, 2024, regarding the change of the measure, Judge Kuçi justified that at the time he accepted the decision, he was completing his opinion in another judgment.

"The decision PN1.S.nr.91/24, on the same day at 12:54, was forwarded in electronic form by the professional associate to the Kosovo Police, Northern Operative Unit. Police officers to implement this decision on May 17, 18 and 19, 2024, went to the location of the defendant, but he was not at home. On May 20.05.2024, XNUMX, the Kosovo Police, Serious Crimes Investigation Unit sent the judge - subject of the investigation, an information report on the actions taken regarding this matter. On the same day, police officers from the Serious Crimes Investigation Unit requested the judge to receive the order, but despite waiting there, they were unable to meet with him because he was in custody and engaged in a hearing," the decision states.

As per the decision, the hearing was prolonged and the police officers were recommended by the judge to come at noon or the next day.

"Police officers also appeared in court on 21.05.2024, but failed to obtain the order from the judge subject to the investigation. The order for the search, detention, arrest and transfer of the convict to the institution for holding the sentence - the Correctional Service of the Republic of Kosovo - Detention Center in Pristina, was issued on 22.05.2025, by Judge Medie Bytyqi. The central list letter was issued on 24.05.2024, by Judge Ngadhnjim Arrni. The request for the issuance of an international arrest warrant was issued on 31.05.2024, by Judge Ngadhnjim Arrni," the decision further states.

Therefore, the Council has found that Judge Kuçi is responsible for the alleged violations, but for the violation under Article 5, paragraph 2, point 2.5, the Council has not found that the actions were taken intentionally.

"For this violation, the Council found that the judge's inaction created a favorable situation for the decision of the Court of Appeals not to be implemented, regarding the security measure in the presence of the defendant in the proceedings," the decision states.

The KJC finds that the manner in which the process was administered has violated the basic principles of the functioning of the judicial system and the responsibilities of the judiciary to promote the values ​​of equal, impartial and independent treatment by efficiently handling each judicial case.

"A judge must act independently, avoiding any situation of conduct, even if it is due to negligence, that would damage public confidence in the judiciary. Judicial actions must be justified and in the spirit of promoting public confidence in the courts, while the sensitivity of the case and the public interest in a case must increase the court's care not to be perceived as biased or influenced. Case management practices must be completely formal and in accordance with the legal provisions for the relevant procedures to avoid any situation of dual interpretation and not according to established judicial practice," it further states.

The sole basis for assessing the alleged violations, the Appeal states, is the evidence collected and the facts confirmed through the investigation report for the KJC.

"The disciplinary measure imposed according to the Council's assessments is a measure proportional to the violation committed by the subject of the investigation, thus ensuring the implementation of the legal responsibilities of the Council in the disciplinary procedure of judges under the Law on Disciplinary Responsibility of Judges and Prosecutors. The disciplinary measure under the Law on Disciplinary Responsibility of Judges and Prosecutors must be a measure that influences the judge - subject of the investigation to correct his actions, while exercising his function," the decision states.

As a mitigating circumstance when imposing a disciplinary sanction, the KJC took into account the fact that no disciplinary procedure had previously been conducted against the subject of the investigation.

The Kosovo Judicial Council (KJC) on January 24, 2024, revoked the decision by which Judge Agim Kuçi was suspended in connection with the decision to terminate the house arrest measure against Sekiraqa.

Judge Kuçi was suspended after announcing the verdict of 25 years in prison for Enver Sekiraqa for inciting the murder of police officer Triumf Riza, where he ruled to terminate his house arrest and allow him to defend himself at liberty.

Whereas, the Court of Appeal, on May 17, 2024, after the appeal of the Special Prosecutor's Office on the decision of the Foundation, which on May 3, 2024 had terminated the measure of house arrest, leaving him to defend himself in freedom, decided that Sekiraqa will return to custody until the judgment becomes final.

But, a day after this decision, the Police announced that they did not find Sekiraqa at home to take him into custody, and so far he has not been arrested.

"The Council, after reviewing and analyzing the two disciplinary cases, has established investigative panels. Regarding the case AD/KGJK/04/2024/GJTHPR-AD/GJTHPR/8/24, the Council, based on the request of the competent authority, by majority vote decided to suspend the judge who is the subject of the investigation, until another decision of the Council," the KJK announcement said when the judge was suspended.

It stated that the Council assessed that the suspension of the subject of the investigation, at this stage of the procedure, will create preconditions for the investigative panel to fully investigate the matter in an independent, objective and unbiased manner.