Summary of Complaints received by the Ombudsperson’s Office that led to a Report to date

2020

Case-2020-05

Complaint: The complainant, an Albanian national, alleged that the condition of employment with the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office to be a citizen of an EU Member or a Contributing Third State, violated his right of non-discrimination, and that the Registrar exceeded her powers by creating arbitrarily this nationality requirement, for it is not a requirement in any of the legal acts that regulate recruitment and selection procedure.

Assessment: the nationality requirement for employment with the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office is in accordance with the law, is objective and justified and furthermore constitutional.

Moreover, since the recruitment and selection procedures apply equally to all vacancies, there is no violation of Article 8 of the ECHR.

Furthermore, since the situation of an applicant without EU or Contributing Third State citizenship is not comparable to the situation of an applicant who holds such citizenship, no discrimination has occurred and both Articles 14 of the ECHR and Article 1(1) of Protocol No. 12 have not been violated. Additionally, there is no violation of Article 24, 36 and 49 of the Constitution.

Conclusion: The recruitment and selection procedures, which the Registrar is obliged to apply, comply with international human rights law standards, the Registrar has not exceeded her power in implementing the nationality requirement, the recruitment and selection procedures are lawful, obligatory and compatible with the Constitution and there has been no unequal treatment of the complainant.  

Note: The full report on this complaint is accessible on the KSC website. 

Summary of Complaints received by the Ombudsperson’s Office resolved through mediation or reconciliation to date

2019

Case-2019-03

Complaint: The complainant alleged that he had not received any information from the Specialist Chambers and the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office as to the progress of his case and asked the Ombudsperson to keep him informed about same. The complainant submitted that he had provided a statement to the institution as a former kidnap victim.

Resolution: The Ombudsperson referred the correspondence to the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office noting that Article 25 of the Law provides that he has the exclusive competence and jurisdiction to keep the complainant informed as to the progress of his case. The matter was resolved to the satisfaction of the complainant.


2018

Case-2018-03

Complaint: The complainant alleged that the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office failed to engage with him and to respond to several correspondence sent by him.

Resolution: The Ombudsperson contacted the body concerned, which contacted the complainant. The complainant subsequently informed the Ombudsperson that he was satisfied with the outcome.

Summary of Complaints received by the Ombudsperson’s Office Terminated by the Complainant to date

2020

Case-2020-04

Complaint: The complainant originally submitted his personal details to the Ombudsperson through the Secure Contact Form but once contacted by the Ombudsperson seeking details of the complaint in accordance with Section 7.1 of the Office of the Ombudsperson Complaints Procedure, he indicated his unwillingness to engage further with the Ombudsperson and the case was closed.


2018

Case-2018-05

Complaint: The complainant originally submitted his personal details through a Secure Contact Form to the Ombudsperson but, when contacted by the Ombudsperson seeking details of the complaint in accordance with Section 7.1 of the Office of the Ombudsperson Complaints Procedure, he indicated his unwillingness to engage further with the Ombudsperson and the case was closed.

Summary of Inadmissible Complaints received by the Ombudsperson’s Office to date

2022

Case-2022-01

Complaint: The complainant submitted that the unjustified delays by the Basic Court of Priština/Prishtinë in handling two cases related to his properties had violated his right to a fair trial and to own property.

Assessment: The complainant did not assert any interaction with the Specialist Chambers and the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office. Therefore, in accordance with Rule 28(2) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the complaint fell outside the Ombudsperson’s jurisdiction and thus the Ombudsperson lacked competence to examine the complaint.

Conclusion: The complaint was declared inadmissible.


2021

Case-2021-01

Complaint: The complainant alleged that a Kosovo municipal agency, namely the Peć/Peja Municipality Legal Affairs Directorate, failed to enforce the final decision issued by the Kosovo Court of Appeals in Pristina confirming his right to purchase an apartment.

Assessment: The complainant did not assert any interaction with the Specialist Chambers and the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office. Therefore, in accordance with Rule 28(2) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the complaint fell outside the Ombudsperson’s jurisdiction and thus the Ombudsperson lacked competence to examine the complaint.

Conclusion: The complaint was declared inadmissible.


Case-2021-02

The complainant had made a complaint against the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office (I) and against the Specialist Chambers (II)

I. Complaint against the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office: The complainant alleged that during the investigations conducted against him, the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office had violated his right to a fair trial, and referred to specific acts of investigation that had occurred more than 6 months prior to the complaint.

Moreover, the Complainant alleged that the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office had failed to answer to his request to terminate the investigation.

Finally, the complainant stated that the Ombudsperson was his only remaining remedy. However, subsequent to lodging the Complaint with the Ombudsperson, the complainant had also filed an application with the Specialist Chambers to have the investigation against him terminated.

Assessment: Regarding the complaint against the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office, a complaint must be submitted to the Ombudsperson within six months of the alleged occurrence, unless good cause to consider the complaint has been shown. In the absence of good cause, the Ombudsperson considered that, in accordance with Rule 29(3)(e) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, this part of the complaint was inadmissible.

Regarding the request of the complainant to the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office, it was established by the Ombudsperson that the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office had, in fact, responded to that request. Thus, in accordance with Rule 29(3)(b) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the complainant had failed to demonstrate a violation of human rights by the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office.

Finally, the Ombudsperson, is prohibited from intervening in any case or other legal proceeding before the Specialist Chambers. Thus, since an application had been filed by the complainant with the Specialist Chambers seeking the termination of the investigation during the assessment of the complaint by the Ombudsperson, in accordance with Rule 29(1) and 29(3)(a) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the Ombudsperson lacked jurisdiction to examine the complaint.

Conclusion: The complaint against the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office was declared inadmissible.

 

II. Complaint against the Specialist Chambers: The complainant alleged that his name had been mentioned in statement of facts regarding his specific actions, without redaction in the public redacted version of a decision of the Pre-Trial Judge, which violates his presumption of innocence and his right to have a matter determined by an independent and impartial court of law. 

Assessment: The Ombudsperson, is prohibited from intervening in any case or other legal proceeding before the Specialist Chambers. Thus, in accordance with Rule 29(1) and 29(3)(a) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the Ombudsperson lacked jurisdiction to examine the complaint.

Conclusion: The complaint against the Specialist Chambers was declared inadmissible.

 

Note: The inadmissibility decision on this complaint is accessible on the KSC website.


Case-2021-03

Complaint: The complainant submitted that the Court of Appeal in Pristina/Prishtinë failed to examine his cases.

Assessment: The complainant did not assert any interaction with the Specialist Chambers and the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office. Therefore, in accordance with Rule 28(2) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the complaint fell outside the Ombudsperson’s jurisdiction and thus the Ombudsperson lacked competence to examine the complaint.

Conclusion: The complaint was declared inadmissible.


Case-2021-04

Complaint: The complainant alleged that he faced issues with the public services and the court of Novo Brdo/Novobërdë, but never provided the Ombudsperson a complaint form with a detailed explanation of his complaint.

Assessment: The complainant did not assert any interaction with the Specialist Chambers and the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office. Therefore, in accordance with Rule 28(2) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the complaint fell outside the Ombudsperson’s jurisdiction and thus the Ombudsperson lacked competence to examine the complaint.

Conclusion: The complaint was declared inadmissible.


2020

Case-2020-01

Complaint: The complainant alleged that the delays in handling his lawsuit by the Basic Court of Pristina/Prishtinë had violated his human rights. His case was filed with the Basic Court of Pristina in 2013 but it had not been dealt with yet.

Assessment: The complainant did not assert any interaction with the Specialist Chambers and the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office. Therefore, in accordance with Rule 28(2) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the complaint fell outside the Ombudsperson’s jurisdiction and thus the Ombudsperson lacked competence to examine the complaint.

Conclusion: The complaint was declared inadmissible.


Case-2020-02

Complaint: The complainant claimed that Kosovo State institutions had violated her father’s fundamental rights. She alleged that the “Special Prosecution Office” and the “Special Court in Pristina/Prishtinë” had held his father in custody for 15 months without any evidence.

Assessment: The complainant did not assert any interaction with the Specialist Chambers and the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office. Therefore, in accordance with Rule 28(2) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the complaint fell outside the Ombudsperson’s jurisdiction and thus the Ombudsperson lacked competence to examine the complaint.

Conclusion: The complaint was declared inadmissible.


Case-2020-03

Complaint: The complainant submitted that the Kosovo Social and Welfare Services refused his request for benefits.

Assessment: The complainant did not assert any interaction with the Specialist Chambers and the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office. Therefore, in accordance with Rule 28(2) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the complaint fell outside the Ombudsperson’s jurisdiction and thus the Ombudsperson lacked competence to examine the complaint.

Conclusion: The complaint was declared inadmissible.


2019

Case-2019-01

Complaint: The complainant alleged that public institutions in Kosovo had violated his human rights. The complainant submitted that the public institutions, though not specifically named in his complaint, abused their authority through the illegal sale and registration of his late father’s property.

Assessment: The complainant did not assert any interaction with the Specialist Chambers and the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office. Therefore, in accordance with Rule 28(2) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the complaint fell outside the Ombudsperson’s jurisdiction and thus the Ombudsperson lacked competence to examine the complaint.

Conclusion: The complaint was declared inadmissible.


Case-2019-02

Complaint: The complainant alleged that he had been waiting ten years for a ruling in Kosovar courts. His case had been referred to the Court of Appeals in Pristina since April 2017.

Assessment: The complainant did not assert any interaction with the Specialist Chambers and the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office. Therefore, in accordance with Rule 28(2) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the complaint fell outside the Ombudsperson’s jurisdiction and thus the Ombudsperson lacked competence to examine the complaint.

Conclusion: The complaint was declared inadmissible.


2018

Case-2018-01

Complaint: The complainant submitted a complaint against the KSC Office of the Head of Division of Administration. As a staff member of the KSC, the complainant raised objections to an administrative decision on her part time employment.

Assessment: Other remedies were available and were not exhausted. Therefore, in accordance with Rule 29(3)(d) the Ombudsperson lacked competence to examine the complaint,

Conclusion: The complaint was declared inadmissible.


Case-2018-02

Complaint: The complainant alleged that the Kosovo State institutions have failed to take appropriate legal measures to have his property returned to his family after it was usurped. The complainant asserted that EULEX and UNMIK failed to take any action on foot of a complaint made by him and neither initiated any investigation into the complaint.

Assessment: The complainant did not assert any interaction with the Specialist Chambers and the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office. Therefore, in accordance with Rule 28(2) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the complaint fell outside the Ombudsperson’s jurisdiction and thus Ombudsperson lacked competence to examine the complaint,

Conclusion: The complaint was declared inadmissible.


Case-2018-04

Complaint: The complainant submitted that his request for a pension, on the basis of limited capacity for work, had been rejected by the Kosovo State authorities. The complainant alleged that despite numerous contacts with several institutions, including a “medical board”, the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare and its Pension Administration Department, his requests had been either rejected or ignored. The complainant was seeking a reconsideration of the decision rejecting his claim.   

Assessment: The complainant did not assert any interaction with the Specialist Chambers and the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office. Therefore, in accordance with Rule 28(2) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, the complaint fell outside the Ombudsperson’s jurisdiction and thus the Ombudsperson lacked competence to examine the complaint,

Conclusion: The complaint was declared inadmissible.