President Vjosa Osmani has submitted to the Constitutional Court comments regarding the requests submitted challenging the constitutionality of the decree dissolving the Assembly. Through these comments, Osmani assesses that her decree is in accordance with the Constitution.
On March 9, 2026, Prime Minister Albin Kurti submitted a request to the Constitutional Court, requesting an assessment of the constitutionality of the President’s decree regarding the dissolution of the Assembly. A day later, another request with the same reason was submitted by Arbërie Nagavci and 30 other MPs. The court merged the two requests.
“Oath for Justice” has provided the President’s comments, stating that the Assembly failed to elect the new President within the constitutional deadline. Members of the ruling party led by Prime Minister Kurti, according to the President, have repeatedly reiterated that March 5 is the deadline for electing the President, therefore, according to her, the change in their positions should be seen as an attempt to delay the dissolution of the Assembly. She emphasizes that the Xth Legislature had 23 days at its disposal after the constitution of the Assembly to conduct the procedure for electing the President, but they only used about an hour. Therefore, the President rejects the petitioners’ request to be given 60 days.
Osmani has assessed that this entire situation with the process of electing the President is a consequence of the lack of political will to reach an agreement in the Assembly. Therefore, he expects the Constitutional Court to confirm that respecting the final and imperative deadline set out in Article 86 (2) of the Constitution is a constitutional and necessary obligation.
According to the document with Osmani’s comments, her mandate ends on April 4, 202 and that according to Article 86 (2) of the Constitution, the new President “must be elected no later than thirty (30) days before the end of the term of the current President.” Consequently, it is noted that the constitutional deadline for electing the new President was March 5, 2026, which the Assembly failed to do.
The document states that the Constitutional Court, in the Judgment in case no. KO 72/20, had confirmed that: “The Constitution provides that if the Assembly fails to fulfill the important constitutional obligations to form the Government and elect the President of the Republic, then the Assembly must be dissolved with the aim of creating a new Assembly that will be able to fulfill these important constitutional duties, after new and early elections.”
The President, in comments sent to the Constitutional Court, claims that the decree is in accordance with the Constitution.
It states that the deadline set in Article 86 (2) of the Constitution for the election of the new President is final. And it will be argued that any other provision of the Constitution relating to the election of the President must be interpreted in harmony and in conjunction with this deadline.
“It will also be argued that Article 82 (1.3) cannot be interpreted as a deadline that must necessarily be used to the end, but only as a constitutional opportunity that can be used, provided that regardless of the moment when the procedure begins, it must necessarily be completed thirty (30) days before the expiration of the current President’s mandate,” Osmani’s comments state.
The President also expects to argue that there were no exceptional circumstances that would make it impossible to elect the President within the time limit set by the Constitution, or that would justify exclusive reliance on Article 82 (1.3), thus violating the imperative time limit of Article 86 (2).
The President’s comments state that Article 86 (2) of the Constitution stipulates that the new President “shall be elected no later than
no later than thirty (30) days before the end of the current President’s term”. And since Osman’s term ends on April 4, it is said that the constitutional deadline for electing the President was March 5, 2026.
“The normative language of Article 86 (2) is clear: the expressions “shall” and “not later than” create a constitutional obligation,” the document states.
It is further stated that the Constitution does not provide for nor does it enable the exercise of the office of President by the Speaker of the Assembly, except in the precise circumstances set forth in Article 90 of the Constitution, or completely unforeseeable circumstances – such as the resignation or death of the President.
According to the President, the petitioners’ interpretation relativizes the final and binding deadline of Article 86 (2), thus violating the very constitutional order of the Republic of Kosovo.
The Constitutional Court, according to the President’s comments, has consistently had a very strict interpretation regarding the obligation to quickly establish institutions and that the same should be done in this specific case, because “any permission to elect a new President outside the imperative deadline of Article 86 (2) would even constitute a rewriting of the Constitution.”
The constitutional deadline for electing the President, according to these comments, should be interpreted strictly and consistently so as to provide predictability for the subsequent actions of the institution of the President.
The maximum duration of 60 days is emphasized as a procedural option left at the disposal of the Assembly, but which must always be used up to the obligation set forth in Article 86 (2), a deadline which cannot be exceeded under any circumstances.
“The date of March 5, 2026 as the last date for the election of the President of the country has been repeatedly confirmed in public statements, both before and after the issuance of Decree No. 24/2026, and by the petitioners themselves, including the Speaker of the Assembly of the Republic of Kosovo, the Prime Minister of the Republic of Kosovo, other members of the Government and members of the parliamentary majority, some of whom are also petitioners of the KO74/26 petition. Consequently, this change in position should be seen as an attempt to delay the dissolution of the Assembly, as an inevitable and final result, and not as an ambiguity of the constitutional provisions,” it further states.
One of the primary purposes of the provision of a deadline for the election of the president is considered to be to ensure that the country does not remain a single day without an elected President.
According to her, the applicants consider the final and imperative deadline of Article 86 (2) only as an opportunity, and not as an obligation, to conclude the procedure for electing the President.
“It was completely clear that until the failure of the election of the President on March 5, 2026, a procedure that began just two hours before the constitutional deadline, all political forces and institutional leaders had complete agreement and clarity on the consequences of the failure to elect the President within the constitutional deadline, i.e. March 5, 2026, statements that are easily accessible on public platforms,” the document quotes.
The President in her comments states that Article 82 (1.3) of the Constitution sets a maximum period of 60 days for the election of the President, from the date of commencement of the procedure. Therefore, there are only 60 days before the expiry of the final deadline set out in Article 86 (2) of the Constitution.
The comments state that up to three rounds of voting may be held within a maximum period of 60 days, but that according to the deadline set out in Article 86 (2), the condition is that the entire procedure be concluded no later than 30 days before the end of the current President’s term.
The claim of the petitioners that the decree on the dissolution of the Assembly violates the principle of the separation of powers, according to the President, is not true, on the contrary – she considers that it reinforces the separation and balance of powers. If she were to act differently, Osmani estimates that the constitutional order of the state would be violated.
It is also emphasized that in the present case, there was no objective or exceptional circumstance that would prevent the election of the President before the expiration of the final constitutional term.
The President emphasizes that the constitutional obligation of the deputies to develop and conclude the procedure for electing the new President has been neglected.
“After the constitution of the Tenth Legislature on February 11, 2026, the members of the Assembly had a full twenty-three (23) days to develop and conclude the procedure for electing the President within the constitutional deadline. However, there has been extreme neglect of this constitutional obligation of theirs and of this issue so important for our state, not considering it as a priority issue,” Osmani’s comments state.
According to the President, the MPs who submitted the request requested a 60-day deadline to elect a new President, although, according to her, they did not use any of the 23 days they had available.
“More precisely, out of the 552 hours they had at their disposal, they chose to use only about one hour to attempt to fulfill one of their main constitutional obligations,” the document states.
The inability to reach a political compromise does not constitute a constitutional obstacle, but according to Osmani, it rather represents the failure of the Assembly itself to exercise the powers and responsibilities entrusted to it by the Constitution.
“Consequently, the failure to elect the President within the final constitutional deadline set out in Article 86.2 was not the result of any objective obstacle, but of the lack of political will to reach an agreement in the Assembly. Thus, there is no constitutional basis that would allow the continuation of the process of electing the President after the final deadline set out in Article 86.2 of the Constitution has passed,” it further states.
At the end of the comments, the President assesses that in this case we are not dealing with a constitutional ambiguity, but with a clear and binding norm of the Constitution – namely Article 86 (2) which clearly defines the final and imperative deadline for the election of the President. Since the specified deadline has passed without the Assembly’s constitutional obligation to elect a new President being fulfilled, the mechanism of dissolving the Assembly was activated by the President.
The decree, according to the comments, has not created a new legal reality, but has formalized a consequence that stems directly from the failure of the Assembly to fulfill one of its fundamental constitutional obligations, set out in Article 65 (7) of the Constitution.
“Any other interpretation would imply relativizing the binding character of the Constitution and would create a dangerous precedent for the functioning of the constitutional order of the Republic of Kosovo. Such an approach would pave the way for deliberate institutional blockages and the weakening of the very principle of the rule of law,” the document states.
Finally, the President requests that the Constitutional Court confirm that respecting the final and imperative deadline set out in Article 86 (2) of the Constitution is a constitutional obligation, necessary for maintaining institutional stability, the democratic functioning of the state and the trust of citizens in the constitutional order of the country.
Otherwise, the Constitutional Court on March 9, 2026, imposed a temporary measure on President Vjosa Osmani’s decree dissolving the Parliament of March 6, 2026.
The Kosovo government has filed a request with the Constitutional Court claiming that President Vjosa Osmani’s decree dissolving the Assembly is contrary to the Constitution of Kosovo. It is alleged that six articles of the Constitution have been violated.
At the session on March 5, the Vetëvendosje Movement presented two candidates for the post of president: Glauk Konjufca and Fatmire Mulhaxha-Kollçaku. The session was adjourned due to lack of quorum. The following day, President Osmani issued a decree dissolving the Parliament.
© BalkansWeb