Abstract
The legal solution offered by the Law establishing the Special Chamber of the Supreme Court of Kosovo is rather challenging for practical implementation. Due to this fact, the decisions of the Special Chamber contain various dilemmas of judges on the jurisdiction of the Chamber on the matters related to natural persons sued by the PAK, which are related to various liabilities of these persons to socially-owned enterprises, namely to the PAK. Since the PAK administers and represents socially owned property in general, it is naturally bound to seek for legal resolutions for all legal contests before a competent court. Naturally, the PAK would seek for such a solution before the Special Chamber of the Supreme Court of Kosovo on PAK-related matters, which is already bound by the title itself, “on PAK-related matters”.Comparisons of remedies by various laws related to subject competence are based on legal literature used in higher education in Kosovo. Analysis of subject competences of regular and special courts is two-fold: the Commercial Court and the Military Court, while the competence of the Special Chamber is only analysed in relation with the Law on Courts, and the Law on the Special Chamber of the Supreme Court, comparing it with the Law on Contested Procedure and the Law on the PAK.The Special Chamber has before and still continues to avoid jurisdiction of this Court, which is sanctioned by Articles 4 and 5 of the Law on the Special Chamber, due to the fact that in cases in which the PAK has sued a natural or legal person, due to debts, occupation of socially owned property, or any other disputed matter, which is directly related to socially owned properties, the Special Chamber proclaims itself incompetent, and transfers the case to regular courts, although the Special Chamber adjudicates “on PAK-related matters”, but in this case only when the PAK is respondent, not when it is claimant.
Highlights
The legal solution offered by the Law establishing the Special Chamber of the Supreme Court of Kosovo is rather challenging for practical implementation
The decisions of the Special Chamber contain various dilemmas of judges on the jurisdiction of the Chamber on the matters related to natural persons sued by the Privatization Agency of Kosovo (PAK), which are related to various liabilities of these persons to socially-owned enterprises, namely to the PAK
Jurisdiction of courts with a focus on the Special Chamber of the Supreme Court of Kosovo 255 established pursuant to UNMIK Regulations, while since 2008, the PAK was established as a legal successor to the Kosovo Trust Agency (KTA), pursuant to a Kosovo Law, and a “new” Special Chamber, pursuant to Law no. 04/L-033 and the PAK, pursuant to the Law no. 03/L-067 of the Republic of Kosovo
Summary
A major dilemma appears with the question on who can be a responding party in procedures before the Special Chamber. Due to the fact that “the PAK has exclusive competence to administer socially owned enterprises and assets in the territory of Kosovo ...”, it is clear that the Special Chamber must have jurisdiction upon PAK claims, when such properties are violated by private natural and legal persons. There is collision in the case law itself, since there is a decision of 2010, which is referred to by the Agency, ASC-090087, of 09 March 2010 According to this decision, in cases when the PAK or the socially owned enterprise is claimant against natural persons, competence belongs to the Special Chamber. If the “reasons above” are viewed, there is no true reason for such an action or decision, apart from quoting the Article 5, which, if viewed in connection with Article 4, definitely and undoubtedly asserts competence in such cases
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.