A recent ruling by Kosovo’s Constitutional Court has barred Member of Parliament (MP) Nenad Rashiq from being elected as Deputy Speaker of the Assembly on the grounds that he does not currently represent the Serbian community. While the decision aims to unblock the country’s months-long political paralysis, it has drawn sharp criticism from legal experts who argue that it sets a dangerous precedent, failing to address the root causes of the constitutional crisis.

At its core, the ruling leaves no room for doubt: the constitutional authority to nominate a Deputy Speaker from the Serbian community belongs to the majority of Serbian MPs. In practice, however, that means the Srpska Lista (Serbian List)—the dominant political party representing Kosovo’s Serbian minority—effectively controls this nomination, since it holds nine of the ten parliamentary seats reserved for the community.

In an exclusive interview with Express Gazette, former Constitutional Court President Enver Hasani offered a scathing legal analysis of the Court’s ruling. He argued that the court’s decision, while clear in its core mandate, is internally inconsistent and risks rewarding political obstructionism. “The ruling, in its reasoning, is clear: the representatives of the Serbian majority have the constitutional prerogative for the proposal,” Hasani said. “Rashiq does not represent the Serbian community; that, for the time being, is represented by the Serbian List party.”

This part of the judgment, according to Hasani, is legally sound and reinforces the constitutional framework designed to ensure authentic community representation. However, he contends that the court simultaneously “amnestied,”—in his words—the controversial election of Emilija Rexhepi as Deputy Speaker representing other non-Serbian minorities. That election was conducted through a separate vote, diverging from the initial package vote for other deputy speakers—a procedure Serbian List had contested.

“By ‘amnestying’ the election of Ms. Emilia Rexhepi, the Constitutional Court has ‘saved face’ for the LVV,” Hasani said, referring to Vetëvendosje, the ruling party of Prime Minister Albin Kurti, which advocates for Kosovo’s self-determination. “But it has simultaneously created illusion…that, [through] terrorizing pressure, they can win concessions in the future.”

A central pillar of Hasani’s critique is the Court’s alleged failure to sanction the “unconstitutional behavior” of the majority party. The ruling clearly identifies that the parliamentary blockage originated from the actions of the Assembly Speaker and his party, particularly through the “unconstitutional” use of a lottery system to select candidates after initial votes failed.

Yet, the Court did not impose any consequences. “What the Court should have done,” Hasani argued, “is sanction the unconstitutional behavior of the party that wins the majority of votes from the Albanian ranks.”

He points to a fundamental legal principle: no one should benefit from an unconstitutional situation they themselves created. The Court explicitly stated that the Serbian List could lose its right to propose a candidate if it obstructs the process. Hasani contends that the same standard should apply to the majority Albanian party. “If for the Serbs and minorities the loss of the prerogative to propose a candidate applies due to non-proposal… then the same should apply to the winning party from the Albanians ranks,” he said. Failure to clarify this “constitutional discrimination,” he warns, creates a dangerous double standard.

The Court has given the Assembly 12 days to elect the Serbian Deputy Speaker and finalize its constitution. However, it did not specify what happens if this deadline is missed, expressing confidence that the political situation is “as clear and pure as a tear.”

Hasani is less optimistic. Unlike his former colleagues on the bench, he fears this “circus” will continue “with the same actors, the same approach, and the same goal.”

The ruling leaves Kosovo at a critical juncture. While it provides a temporary roadmap out of the immediate impasse, its legal inconsistencies, according to critics like Hasani, may have weakened the Constitutional Court’s authority and emboldened the very political tactics that created the crisis. The coming days will test whether political actors adhere to the letter of the ruling—or exploit its ambiguities, prolonging Kosovo’s institutional stalemate.