Summary of Complaints received by the Ombudsperson’s Office that led to a Report to date
2022
CASE-2022-04
Complaint: The complainant alleged that during the course of being interviewed by staff of the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office (‘SPO’), one of the interviewers used the phrase “Kosovo I Metohija” when referring to Kosovo. The complainant stated that the use of this phrase is offensive and repugnant, as it is the term used by Serbia when referring to Kosovo in a pejorative manner.
He further submitted that when he raised his concerns about the use of the term at the end of the interview, the SPO staff members present did not appear to realise and/or care what they had said.
The Ombudsperson sought the views of the Specialist Prosecutor on the complaint and requested specific information regarding the use of this phrase during the interview with the complainant and more generally as to whether this was common practice within the SPO.
Assessment: The Ombudsperson is satisfied that the phrase was used in error by the SPO during the interview with the complainant. The Ombudsperson acknowledged the use of this phrase was undoubtedly offensive to the complainant. However, the Ombudsperson found that the use of the phrase did not meet the threshold required to constitute a violation of any fundamental right.
Furthermore, the Ombudsperson was satisfied from the submissions received from the Specialist Prosecutor that appropriate measures have been taken by the SPO to ensure that such an error will not occur in the future.
Conclusion: The complaint was rejected.
Note: The Report on this complaint is accessible on the KSC website.
Case-2022-02
Complaint: The complainants, four individuals indicted before the Kosovo Specialist Chambers and being held in detention since their arrest, alleged that the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office had violated their right to a fair trial and referred to specific actions of the SPO which they believe constitute violations of these rights.
The complainants alleged that the SPO had not complied with the disclosure obligations placed on it by the Law and by the Rules of Procedure and Evidence. They also submitted that the documentation that they had received from the SPO had been subject to excessive redactions.
The complainants also alleged that a number of violations of the Constitution and the Law by the Specialist Chambers had resulted in a violation of their right to an independent, impartial and fair trial as well as their right to an effective remedy.
They alleged violations resulting from the manner in which the Specialist Chambers had applied the law in a case before the Specialist Chamber of the Constitutional Court, the withdrawal of a Judge from a Panel and dismissal of submissions regarding interim release, amongst others. The complainants also submitted arguments regarding the jurisdiction of the Ombudsperson.
Furthermore, the complainants alleged that the Specialist Chambers are not subject to sufficient oversight, specifically because the Court is not accountable to the Kosovo Judicial Council.
In addition, the complainants alleged that the KSC is not complying with Article 3(1) of the Law No.05/L-053.
The complainants further alleged that they had been subjected to excessive prolongation of proceedings before the Specialist Chambers.
The complainants also submitted that they had suffered a violation of their right to a fair trial as result of the Specialist Chambers not issuing a decision regarding the length of the trial.
Finally, they allege that the KSC operates in violation of Article 3(6) of the Law No.05/L-053.
Assessment: The Ombudsperson noted that both of the complaints made by the complainants against the SPO had already been the subject of proceedings before the Specialist Chambers.
The Ombudsperson is prohibited from intervening in any case or other legal proceeding before the Specialist Chambers. Thus, since both matters were part of legal proceedings, 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.
Moreover, certain elements of the complainant’s submissions against the Specialist Chambers were also the subject of proceedings before the Specialist Chambers and were rejected for lack of jurisdiction.
Turning to the remaining elements of the complaint, the Ombudsperson decided that none of them had succeeded in demonstrating a violation of the complainants’ right to a fair trial or to an effective remedy. Therefore, pursuant to rule 29(3)b of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, those elements of the complaint against the Specialist Chambers were also rejected.
Conclusion: The complaint, in its entirety, was rejected.
Note: The full report on this complaint is accessible on the KSC website.
2021
Case-2021-05
Complaint: The complainant, a former employee of the SPO, alleged that the disclosure of his name in open court and the disclosure of his name to the Defence resulted in a violation of his right to private and professional life, his right to life and the right to life of his family by the SPO.
Assessment: Regarding the mention of the name of the complainant during the public proceedings, the Ombudsperson was of the view that this related to the conduct of legal proceedings before the Court. 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 this strand of the complaint.
Regarding the disclosure of the name and the position of the complainant in documents transmitted to the Defence, the Ombudsperson found that the Complainant had no reasonable expectation that his identity would be protected and that as such, the disclosure of his name in documents transmitted to the Defence did not violate his right to private life, as protected by Article 36 of the Constitution, Article 8 of the ECHR and Article 17 of the ICCPR.
Besides, the Ombudsperson found that the complainant failed to demonstrate that the disclosure of his name to the Defence by the SPO resulted in a real and immediate risk to his life and that of his family, and that as such, it had not resulted in a violation of his right to life, as protected by Article 25 of the Constitution, Article 2 of the ECHR and Article 6 of the ICCPR.
Finally, the Ombudsperson found that that the complainant failed to demonstrate that the disclosure of his name to the Defence by the SPO compromised his opportunities to find future employment, since the disclosure was done on a confidential basis, and that as such it had not resulted in a violation of his right to private and professional life, as protected by Article 36 of the Constitution, Article 8 of the ECHR and Article 17 of the ICCPR.
Conclusion: The Ombudsperson declared the first strand of the complaint inadmissible and found that the SPO did not violate the fundamental rights of the complainant in disclosing the name of the complainant to the Defence as it was done so on a confidential basis.
Note: The full report on this complaint is accessible on the KSC website.
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 rejected.
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 rejected.
Note: The full report on this complaint is accessible on the KSC website.
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 and Rejected Complaints received by the Ombudsperson’s Office to date
2023
CASE 2023-01
Complaint: The complainant alleged that he had encountered a number of issues while trying to resolve a dispute with a municipality over the alleged illegal use of a piece of his property by the municipality. The complainant alleges that proceedings had continued without resolution for several years and were eventually brought by him before the Kosovo Courts. However, the alleged problems continued, regarding both the length of proceedings and the failure of the Courts to reply to a number of applications made to them by the complainant
Assessment: The complainant did not assert any interaction with the Kosovo Specialist Chambers or the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office. Therefore, in accordance with Rule 28(2) of the Rules of Procedure and Evidence (RPE), the complaint fell outside the Ombudsperson’s jurisdiction and thus the Ombudsperson lacked competence to examine the complaint.
Conclusion: The complaint was rejected pursuant to Rule 29(3)(b) of the RPE.
2022
Case-2022-03
Complaint: The complainant contacted the Ombudsperson’s Office without informing the Ombudsperson of the content of his complaint. Despite a number of reminders from the Ombudsperson, the complainant failed to engage further with the Ombudsperson.
Assessment: The complaint was incomplete and the complainant failed to provide any details of his complaint which would allow the Ombudsperson to assess it. Therefore, in accordance with Rule 29(3)(c), the complaint was rejected.
Conclusion: The complaint was rejected.
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 rejected.
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 rejected.
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 rejected.
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 rejected.
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 rejected.
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 rejected.
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 rejected.
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 rejected.
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 rejected.
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 rejected.
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 rejected.
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 rejected.