Source: http://journals.univ-danubius.ro/index.php/juridica/article/view/3935/4021/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 22:47:40+00:00

Document:
Abstract: Nowadays there is a general call, of every international institution, meaning EU, and other international mechanism requiring and basing their policies on the principle of conditionality (Pippan, 2004) by urging states to undertake steps to fulfill the whole range of political and economic conditions in return for partnership, membership or monetary aid. Conditionality is screened through the new lenses of order and stability based on rule of law, democracy, free market economy, and respect for human rights and minority rights, envisaged as Western values. (Copenhagen Criteria, 1993) To achieve this aim the rule of law is considered as occupying a unique position in a democratic society, therefore it is called upon states to create conditions for reforms on a judiciary as the traditional mechanism to decide on disputes, to protect citizens from the arbitrary political affiliation or private individuals. As such, it fights corruption too. (Un Judge) Simply said it is required from the states to create conditions to achieve the independent judiciary, through which democratic society can be created. As such, these analyses give hints on the issue of rule of law from the transitional phase of UNMIK to Kosovar Institution elucidating the presence of the EU EULEX Mission, too. Therefore, in the case of Kosovo the challenge of the judiciary system was twofold concerning UNMIK and EU Mission and the establishment of the Kosovo Constitution from another side.
In the case of UNMIK, the Resolution 1244 has granted all legislative and executive powers in the SRSG that is heading the interim civil administration, including the administration of the judiciary. (Nilson, 2004) This robust mandate has shown also to lack central features of a democratic system with functioning separation of powers and checks and balances. This mandate did not guarantee also the accountability of administration when alleged human rights violations occur.
Resolution 1244 envisaged the transitional phase and devolution of power to the people of the territory, however there was no clear vision of what will be the organizational function of the territory, while at the same time the status and the talks were based on the policy of “standards before the status” (UN DOC 2003) This policy was justified as the precondition for a just and fair society, as required for the potential integration of Kosovo into European structures. (Commission Communication, 2014) The rationale behind this policy was to formulate indicators of good governance, to use as tools to measure progress in policies. Make local institutions fulfilling certain steps of progress from the intermediate phase to the discussion of final status. Standards intended to build democratic institutions, protect minority rights and human rights. Indicators of achievement would cover a range of issues in the political and economic sphere, public finance and taxation, human rights, public health, educational advancement, rule of law. (Knoll, 2005) Rule of Law as such was reflected in Standard 2.Due to the linkage of the standards and the status in many respects standards becomes “technical and marginalized” due to undefined status of Kosovo. As such, issue of rule of law has undergone transitional phase from UNMIK to the “Independent Republic of Kosovo” (Declaration of Independence, 2008) with its peculiarities. In this respect, the paper questions the assumption that the rule of law has reached the result based on the European and international law standards enshrined in our Constitution.
Judiciary reform is considered as key element to combat crime and political violence, while weak justice system undermines the effort to establish stable governing institutions. (Cerone & Baldwin, 2004) Having in mind this circle, International Community has increasingly recognized the importance of judiciary reform programs in post conflict reconstruction in Balkans. Judiciary reform became priority even to UNMIK administration. (Betts, 2001; Stahn, 2007) From June 1999 UNMIK’s primary task was revival of the Kosovo judiciary.
At the time of UNMIK deployment, the judicial system was literally non-existent, carried out within a relatively short time, has certainly represented one of the most remarkable achievements of UNMIK. Courts of all instances were restored in all centers of Kosovo. Subsequently, courts of minor offences were established in the municipal level including the High Minor Offences Courts as an appellate court for minor offences cases. Commercial Court, competent to adjudicate disputes involving business enterprises, also became functional. (Stahn, 2008) Reform programs were concentrated mostly as to identify and address weaknesses of justice institutions through training and technical assistance, and international judge and prosecutors are brought when local judges or prosecutors are unable or unwilling to handle sensitive cases. (Carolan, 2008) As of October 2004, the judiciary employed 313 judges, including 14 judges serving on the Supreme Court.
In April 2001 it was promulgated Regulation 2001/8 establishing the Kosovo Judicial and Prosecutorial Council, (UNMIK Regulation 2001/8, 2001) composed of nine members, the majority of whom were internationals. The KJPC thus envisaged a clear policy of International control over the judiciary.
Although UNMIK has been able to intervene and protect judicial independence to a certain limits from the politics, judicial independence remained under the absolute control of UNMIK without a possibility to be challenged by the local ownership. The UNMIK achievements were not sufficient to assert conclusively that Kosovo judiciary has become “independent, impartial, multi-ethnic and competent”, due to the nature of UNMIK itself.
In principle, justice system so far, with the integration processes in the EU did not resulted with the creation of a uniformity, by creating a united model of a justice system for every EU member, therefore national justice system remained with the specific features of organization. (Toggenburg & Grimheden, 2016) EU members accepted that each state has the right to organize its own judicial system in the manner it consider most appropriate. The aim behind this policy of EU is to protect rights granted to individuals and legal persons (and rights recognized by the EU law) in practical and effective manner despite the forms of how justice system is organized. (Rollo & Mayhew 2006). At the same time, the ongoing reforms of the Western Balkans countries in the area of rule of law and judiciary reform have been primarily driven by EU assistance. (Larsen, 2014) For a decade now, the EU through the assistance provided by the Community Assistance for Reconstruction, Development and stability programme-CARDS and as of 2007 through the Instrument for Pre-Accession Assistance (IPA) supports the rule of law and judiciary reform. In particular, as mentioned by the Commission, the current IPA regulation has proved to be efficient and effective and the proposal for the new financial instrument will draw from this experience. (Enlargement Strategy, 2011-12) As a result of EU assistance and as noted through the Country Progress Reports, there is a general perception that (with noted exceptions) the legal and institutional framework in the judiciary is mainly in place. Enlargement process in Kosovo were initiated with UNMIK and continued with the government of Kosovo after gaining the Independence. The biggest achievement is the signing of the SAA (Stabilization and Association Agreement between the European Union and Kosovo on 22 October 2015).
Independence of Kosovo is achieved on 17 February 2008 after more than six years of international administration by UNMIK in Kosovo, the international community agreed to open the issue of the future political status of Kosovo. In essence, the Contact Group, an informal grouping of six countries (USA, Russia, United Kingdom, Germany, France and Italy) in the second part of 2005, agreed to open the issue of the future political status of Kosovo.
Additionally, Ahtisari’s proposal covered the structure of the future international presence in Kosovo, including here the ESDP mission (EULEX) in the field of the rule of law. European Council of Foreign Ministers rushed through the joint action establishing EULEX before Kosovo’s declaration of independence, thus at time when at least no EU member would object to the establishment of EULEX. (Dzihic & Kramer, 2009) A legalization of EULEX Mission occurred with the acceptance of Russia and Serbia for the price of the EU Member States accepting EULEX participating as part of the UN presence in Kosovo. However from a Kosovo perspective EULEX operates lawfully only if it is based on any of the documents listed by Kosovo as being legally constitutive for EULEX’s mandate. The Joint Action establishing EULEX makes no reference to the Ahtisaari Plan, the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo, the Declaration of Independence or an invitation by Kosovo authorities.
EULEX is also responsible to monitor, mentor and advise Kosovo institutions in all areas to rule of law and to investigate, prosecute, adjudicate and enforce certain categories of serious crimes. (Council Joint Action 2008). At the same time EULEX is also responsible for ensuring the maintenance and promotion of the rule of law, public order and security, which could include the reversion of annulment of operational decisions taken by Kosovo authorities. (Council Joint Action, note 55).
Besides the International presence Kosovo has promulgated its Constitution. The constitution was ratified on 9 April and came to effect on 15 June 2008. The Constitution was drafted through cooperation of USA-AID (as the main donor), Venice Commission, and a group of national experts. As such this Constitution became a model for attaining the highest standards of human rights.
One of the novelties of the Kosovo Constitution is Art.53 which stipulates that “[h]uman rights and fundamental freedoms guaranteed […]shall be interpreted in consistence with the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights”.(ibid, Art. 53). This Provision created the possibility for Kosovo citizens to address issues of human rights on the Constitutional Court and also through this provision European Convention of Human Rights directly become part of the national law of Kosovo. Therefore, decisions which derive from the ECtHR are binding interpretative guidelines, not only for all courts in Kosovo, but also other state organs, and assist them as to how fundamental rights and freedoms must be interpreted and applied in Kosovo.
Building the Statehood of Kosovo was rather peculiar and with it rule of law had the same destiny. In its inception UNMIK played the important role on reviving the judiciary, albeit with lots of critics on the concentration of power in the hands of SRSG. On the other hand the European Rule of Law (EULEX) mission is meant to serve a noble and important purpose, i.e. to assist Kosovo’s authorities in establishing and developing rule of law. However, it is impossible for EULEX to accomplish its mandate under circumstance in which it was established, under the status neutral framework of the Resolution 1244 while at the same time co-operating de facto in justice and other legal matters with the authorities of the Republic of Kosovo. On the other hand, the establishment and performance of the constitutional courts certainly contributed to building the Rule of Law through judicial review within the political system. The justices and their rulings, in former communist countries and in Kosovo too, promoted the institutionalization of a political pattern, which relies on a constitutionally resolved conflicts. Therefore, one can conclude that from the very beginning the Constitutional Court has demonstrated that the bases of the decision are based on the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights with the desire to improve the bases of the Rule of Law as a determinant for developing democracy.
Amuur v France (1996). Judgment ECHR Reports and Judgment and Decision paragraph 50.
Azzopardi, Godwin Muscat (2006). UN International Judge, Supreme Court of Kosovo. Parliamentary and Expert Roundtable on Constitutional Issues. 21 June Skopje.
Baun, J. Micheal. (2000). A Wider Europe: The Process and Politics of European Union Enlargement Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc. Oxford.
Betts, W.S. (2000). The Post Conflict Transitional Administration of Kosovo and the Lessons-Learned in Efforts to Establish a Judiciary and Rule of Law. Michigan Journal of International Law, vol. 22, pp. 371.
Brandt, Marcus (2005). Effective Human Rights Protection when the UN Becomes the State: lessons from UNMIK. UN, Human Rights and Post-Conflict Situations Eds. by White Nigel D. & Klassen, Dirk Manchester Press, pp. 354.
Brogan v UK. (1988). Judgment ECHR Reports of Judgment and Decision paragraph 66,67.
Carolan, R.F. (2008). An Examination of the Role of Hybrid International Tribunals in Prosecuting War Crimes and Developing Independent Domestic Court Systems: The Case of Kosovo. Transitional Law and Contemporary Problems, Vol. 17, pp. 9.
Cerone, J. & Baldwin, C. (2004). Explaining and Evaluating the UNMIK Court System. Internationalized Criminal Courts: Sierra Leone, East Timor, Kosovo, and Cambodia Eds by C.P.R. Romano: Oxford University Press.
Commission Communication (2014). A New EU Framework to Strengthen the Rule of Law COM 2014 158 final/2, pp. 7.
Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo, Art. 102.3.
Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo, Art. 102-107 (Justice System).
Copenhagen European Council Summit (1993). There were enunciated full criteria for membership: political criteria; economic criteria and acquis communautaire.
Council Joint Action (note 55), Art. 3 (b).
Council Joint Action 2008/124/CFSP, Art. 3 (a) and (d).
Council of the European Union (2008e). Javier Solana, EU High Representative for the CFSP, on UN reconfiguration of the civilian presence in Kosovo. Brussels, 21 Jun e 2008,S223/08. Available at http://www.consilium.europa.eu/ue Docs/cms_Data/docs/pressdata/EN/declarations/101371.pdf.
Declaration of the Republic of Kosovo (2008) 17 February.
Directive 743/2002 on general rules for encouraging cooperation in the area of home and justice affairs.
Dzihic V. & Kramer H. (2009). Kosovo After Independence-Is the EU’s EULEX Mission Delivering on its Promises. Frierich-Ebert Stiftung.
Edinburgh School of Research Paper no 2014/48 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2527627.
Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges (2011-2012). Brussels: European Commission, 4 and 23.
Enlargement Strategy and Main Challenges (2011-2012). Brussels: European Commission, 20-21.
Hillgruber, Christian (1998). The admission of New States to the International Community European Journal of International Law, Vol. 9, 3, pp. 500.
Inglis, Shelly & Marshall, David (2003). The Disempowerment of Human Rights –Based Justice in the United Nation Mission in Kosovo. Harvard Human Rights, Vol. 17, pp. 95.
Jacque, J.P. (2015). Review of the EULEX Kosovo Mission’s Implementation of the Mandate with a Particular Focus on the Handling of Recent Allegations, accessed eeas.europa.eu/statements-eeas/docs/150331-jacque-report-en.pdf>, visited 3 October 2016.
Jonas, Nilson (2004). UNMIK and the Ombudsperson Institution in Kosovo: Human Rights Protection in a UN Surrogate State. Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights, Vol. 22, No. 3.
Knoll, Bernard (2005). From Benchmarking to Final Status? Kosovo and the Problem of an International Administration’s: Open Ended Mandate EJIL, Vol. 16, no 4, pp. 641.
Larsen, Lars Bay (2014). Mutual Recognition in the Field of Criminal Law-A Short-Cut with Obstacles?
Law No.03/L-053 on the Jurisdiction, Case Selection and Case Allocation of EULEX Judges and Prosecutors in Kosovo, Art.1, available at http://www.assembly-kosova.org.
Law No.03/L-053(note 95), Art. 2.
Letter dated 26.3.2007 from the Secretary-General addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/2007/168), available at http://www.unosek.org; Comprehensive Proposal for the Kosovo Status Settlement dated 26.3.2007, available at http://www.unosek.org.
OSCE reports recommendation that international judges should be subject of the same conditions and the accountability as the national judges; Lawyers Committee for Human Rights (1999). A fragile Peace: Threats to Justice in Kosovo, New York, p. 1.
Pippan, Christian (2004). The Rocky Road to Europe: The EU’s Stabilization and Association Process for the Western Balkans and the Principle of the Conditionality. European Foreign Affairs Review, Vol. 9 No. 2, pp. 220.
Raz, J. (1979). The Rule of Law and its Virtue. In Raz. J, The Authority of Law. Essays on Law and Morality. Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 221.
Report of the Secretary General to the Security Council of 12 June 1999, UN Doc, 1999/779, paragraph 39 and 41. Resolution 1244 empowers the SRSG to change, repeal or suspend the existing laws and to issue legislative acts in the forms of regulation.
Rollo and Mayhew (2006). Political Economy of Enlargement. Lectures Sussex European Institute-University of Sussex, Brighton.
Salamun, Michaela (2000). Constitutional Preconditions for Good Governance and Sustainable Development in Kosovo. NASH Albanian Studies Program, Vol. 1, pp. 9.
Stahn, C. (2005). Justice under Transitional Administration: Contours and Critique of a Paradigm. Huston Journal of International Law, Vol. 27, pp. 1.
Stahn, C. (2008). The Law and Practice of International Territorial Administration: From Versailles to Iraq and Beyond. Cambridge University Press.
Standards for Kosovo (2003). U.N. Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo, U.N. Doc. UNMIK/PR/1078.
Toggenburg, G.N. & Grimheden, J. (2016). The Rule of Law and the Rule of Fundamental Rights: Seven Practical Pointers. Reinforcing Rule of Law Oversight in the European Union, Eds. by Closa C. and Kochenov, D. Cambridge University Press.
UNMIK/Reg/1999/7 (1999). (On Appointment and Removal from Offices of Judges and Prosecutors), 7 September, amended by UNMIK/Reg/2000/57 (2000) 6 October.
UNOSEK (2007a). Special Envoy for Kosovo. Available at http://www.unosek.org/en/speenvoy.html.
Weller, M (2008). Kosovo’s Final Status. J. Int’l Aff. 84.
1 Associate Professor, PhD, Vice Dean on International Affairs and Quality Insurance, Former Judge of the Constitutional Court, Faculty of Law, Prishtina University “Hasan Prishtina”, Kosovo, Address: Rruga, “Agim Ramadani”, Prishtinë 10000, Kosovo, Tel.: +381(0)38 229 063/ 220 484, Fax: +381(0)38 229 744, E-mail: ilirianaislami@yahoo.com.

References: Art.53
 Art. 53
 Art. 102
 Art. 102
 Art. 3
 Art. 3
 V. 
 Art.1
 Art. 2