According to the announcement of the Supreme Court, with the ruling PA.nr.16/2026, the implementation of Article 7, paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of this administrative instruction has been temporarily prohibited, until a final decision is made in the judicial procedure.

The lawsuit was filed on June 10 by V.Z. by Vitia, which has requested the declaration of illegality and the partial repeal of the contested provisions, claiming that they violate the principle of meritocracy and equal treatment in the promotion process.

According to the claims presented in the lawsuit, the contested provisions enable police officers with at least ten years of active experience in the Kosovo Police, who have not been promoted during this period, to apply for two higher ranks at the same time, without being subject to the restrictions related to the minimum length of stay in the previous rank.

The plaintiff has argued that such an arrangement “creates an advantage for a certain category of police officers in relation to those who have gone through regular promotion procedures and have exercised the duties, responsibilities and professional experience associated with the respective ranks”.

She has also raised concerns about the impact that these provisions may have on the structure hierarchy and the chain of command within the Kosovo Police.

“The contested provisions may violate the hierarchical structure and the chain of command within the Kosovo Police, as they enable police officials who have not exercised supervisory and leadership functions at the rank of Sergeant to compete directly for the rank of Lieutenant, in the same procedure as officials who have gone through the preliminary promotion processes and gained the relevant experience in supervisory positions”, says the reasoning of lawsuit.

After reviewing the request and the submitted documentation, the Supreme Court has assessed that the legal conditions for the determination of the special security measure, provided for by Article 100 of the Law on Administrative Conflicts, have been met.

In its reasoning, the Court emphasizes that “the plaintiff has raised serious claims regarding the legality of the disputed provisions, including claims of exceeding the legal authorization, violation of the principle of meritocracy, influence on the hierarchy and chain of command, as well as lack of proportionality and reasoning”.

The Court has also assessed that there is a risk that the continuation of the promotion procedure will cause consequences that would be difficult or impossible to correct later.

“In the preliminary assessment of the request, the Court concluded that there is a real risk of causing serious and irreversible damage in the event of the continuation of the application of the contested provisions and the promotion procedures based on them. The court also assessed that the temporary suspension of the implementation of these provisions does not seriously infringe the public interest, while it is in accordance with the principle of proportionality,” the decision states.

According to the Supreme Court, the termination of the promotion procedure before a final decision on the legality of the contested provisions is made could create irreversible consequences.

“Given that the procedure of the promotion was initiated on the basis of the provisions that are the subject of judicial review and that its termination before the meritorious decision could create irreversible consequences, the Court considered that the maintenance of the existing situation through the special insurance measure is necessary until the final decision”, it is emphasized in the reasoning.

The Supreme Court has clarified that this decision was taken only within the preliminary examination of the case and does not prejudge the final epilogue of the lawsuit. The final decision on the legality of the contested provisions of Administrative Instruction no. 01/2026 will be taken after the full review of the case in the relevant judicial procedure.

Source: prizrenpost