October 10, 2011 – Problems in the process of reappointment and appointment have begun from an inadequate start, since they lack the basic laws to develop a successful process and so important. The process has started with the absence of four basic laws such as: Law on Kosovo Judicial Council, Law on State Prosecutor, Law on Courts and Law on Prosecutions.
Also, a number of other issues that are not regulated by legal remedies, such as clear appointment and reappointment criteria for judges and prosecutors, as well as the determination of legal experience that have significantly affected the detriment of this process.
A costly mistake was the test of eliminating character ethics that had demoted judges and prosecutors who had failed, who were allowed to continue working until the end of the process. This has had a negative impact, as unmotivated, didn’t do their work properly and in certain cases they had solved cases which make them suspected of abuse of official duty.
Judges and prosecutors, regardless of the processes they pass through, must respond to the legal obligations arising for performing the jobs efficiently. Research shows that there have been evidenced cases of abuse such as non-performance of cases while exercising the function of judge and prosecutor, or carrying out the cases in much larger numbers than they usually did.
All of this comes as a result of the lack of work control mechanism that should follow the progress of work and solving of cases as defined by the legal provisions. The President of the Republic of Kosovo has made political interference in the process of reappointment and appointment of judges and prosecutors. On the occasion of the decree of judges and prosecutors, the country’s president from the list of KJC’s proposed nominees, has removed certain candidates, without giving any justification as required by law in the only mechanism that makes nominations for appointments to the KJC. The President has the right to return the nominated candidates, but he has no right to do so without giving proper reasoning to the Judicial Council, who can then use the rights to resubmit the candidate’s proposal or propose another candidate as defined by law. Such political interventions, highlighted in the European Commission’s Progress Report, apart from damaging the process, have left a bad shadow for the whole process. The position of the KJC was extremely opportunistic in relation to the institutions of the president on the occasion of the non-appointment of four candidates highlighted in the report. The KJC has silenced the political influence of the President of the Republic despite the fact that he did not receive any written explanation as to why the candidates he proposed were not decreed.
The process of reappointing and appointing of judges and prosecutors should have included filtering support staff of courts and prosecutors’ offices. The end of this process has reappointed about 40 percent of judges and prosecutors, which 60 percent are young. This shows that the vast majority of 60 percent of judges and prosecutors, in one way or another hasn’t been worthy to be part of the justice system in the country. But, how can be worthy the 60 percent of the supporting staff of judges and prosecutors that haven’t been reappointed, this is the issue to be raised now. The staff of the courts and prosecutor’s offices has proven in certain cases that it has been a supporter of various unlawful activities of judges or prosecutors. While, their role have been seen to be enormous in all judicial and prosecutorial processes, as they are an integral part of the daily work of judges and prosecutors. Therefore, they would have to be reappointed in a similar process as their superiors.