Focus on: The Establishment of the Administrative Court of Kosovo

Introduction

The Kosovo Judicial Council, at its 363rd session, decided on 5 May 2026 to commence the functioning of the Administrative Court. The establishment of the Administrative Court finalises the structural reforms of the judiciary in Kosovo and represents an important milestone in the broader development of administrative law. These reforms have largely been undertaken in the context of Kosovo’s efforts to align its judiciary structure and legal framework with the European Union integration requirements.

 

Brief Historical Chronology of Administrative Adjudication in Kosovo

Kosovo, for a long time, did not have a specialised administrative court, while other countries in the region have established their specialised administrative courts. Regional countries such as Albania, North Macedonia, Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro, Croatia, and Slovenia have already established their specialised administrative courts, while Bosnia and Herzegovina remains an exception.

Prior to 2010, the Supreme Court of Kosovo had exclusive competence over all administrative disputes. From 2010, with the entry into force of Law No. 03/L-199 on Courts (2010), this exclusive competence was transferred to the Administrative Matters Departments of the Basic Court of Pristina, as a court of first instance, and of the Court of Appeals of Kosovo, as a court of second instance. These departments also exercised general jurisdiction over administrative disputes throughout the territory of Kosovo, regardless of whether the plaintiff was an individual or a business. This judicial structure for administrative adjudication was also maintained under Law No. 06/L-054 on Courts (2018).

However, this judicial structure for administrative adjudication was recently modified by Law No. 08/L-015 on Commercial Court (2022) (hereinafter: ‘Law on Commercial Court’), which reserved two separate departments within the Commercial Court of Kosovo responsible for the adjudication of administrative disputes initiated by businesses against public authorities, namely: the Administrative Matters Department of the First Instance Chambers, for adjudicating all administrative disputes initiated by businesses against final decisions in administrative proceedings; and the Fiscal Department of the First Instance Chambers, for adjudicating all administrative disputes initiated by businesses against final decisions of the Tax Administration of Kosovo, customs authorities, the Ministry of Finance, and any other public body responsible for imposing taxes or other state duties.

Consequently, with the operationalisation of the Commercial Court on 1 August 2022, the adjudication of administrative disputes in Kosovo was divided into two directions. Pursuant to Law No. 06/L-054 on Courts (2018), as well as the previous Law No. 03/L-199 on Courts (2010), all administrative disputes initiated by individuals against public authorities were adjudicated in the first instance by the Administrative Matters Department of the Basic Court of Pristina, and in the second instance by the Administrative Matters Department of the Court of Appeals of Kosovo.

Meanwhile, pursuant to the Law on Commercial Court (2022), all administrative disputes initiated by businesses against public authorities were adjudicated in the first instance by the Administrative Matters Department and the Fiscal Department of the First Instance Chambers of the Commercial Court, and in the second instance by the Second Instance Chambers of the Commercial Court, which were and remain not separated into specific departments.

 

Administrative Court as an Informal Requirement for Accession to the EU

 The European Commission’s progress reports for Kosovo (2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, 2024 and 2025) highlight the need to improve the rule of law, judicial independence, and efficiency in the courts. While these reports do not formally require a specialised Administrative Court for EU accession, they emphasise the importance of effective administrative justice. Administrative disputes in Kosovo have often faced long delays, backlogs, and inconsistent enforcement, which reduces public trust in the courts. Establishing a stronger system for administrative disputes is therefore seen as an important step towards meeting EU standards for the judiciary and public administration.

Furthermore, the European Commission’s reports also emphasise that administrative courts play an important role in holding public authorities accountable. Stronger administrative courts make it easier for citizens and businesses to challenge government decisions in a fair and effective manner. Improvements in this area can reduce delays, clear backlogs, and increase trust in the courts. By making these changes, Kosovo demonstrates progress in creating a more transparent and reliable administration, which is an important part of the EU’s evaluation of the rule of law.

 

Constitution of a Specialised Administrative Court

The establishment of the Administrative Court was preceded by the enactment (2024) and entry into force (2026) of Law No. 08/L-291 on the Administrative Court (hereinafter: ‘Law on the Administrative Court’), which serves as the legal basis and the constitutive legislative act for the Administrative Court.

The Administrative Court, as a specialised court for administrative disputes with general jurisdiction over the entire territory of Kosovo, will have its seat in Pristina (the capital of Kosovo) and will be of the same judicial degree as the Basic Courts of Kosovo. Furthermore, the Administrative Court will be organised in one (1) adjudication instance, which adjudicates all matters falling within the jurisdiction of this court.

With regard to its jurisdiction, the Administrative Court will be competent to decide, in the first instance, on:

• all administrative disputes;
• all employment-related disputes between the natural person and the public body, or between the public bodies, excluding publicly owned enterprises; and
• any other dispute expressly defined by special law.

With regard to its internal structural organisation, the Administrative Court will have four separate departments, as follows:

1) Fiscal Department, with competence to decide on all administrative disputes relating to customs, taxation, real estate tax, and any other tax or contribution applied in the Republic of Kosovo;

2) Department for Labour Disputes, with competence to decide on all disputes from employment relationship within the jurisdiction of the Administrative Court;

3) Department for Social and Pension Schemes financed by the state, with competence to decide on all administrative disputes arising from social schemes and pension schemes financed by the state; and

4) General Department, with competence to decide on all administrative disputes and other disputes which do not fall within the scope of the other departments.

 

The Absence of a Second Instance within the Administrative Court

Under Article 5(1) of the Law on the Administrative Court, it has become clear that the Administrative Court will function only as the court of first instance and, contrary to the Commercial Court of Kosovo – which undoubtedly serves as the main prototype for specialised courts in Kosovo – will not have a second instance within its institutional structure. Instead, as indicated by Article 17 of the Law on the Administrative Court, the Court of Appeals of Kosovo, more specifically its Administrative Matters Department, which already exists as a court of second instance, will be exclusively competent to review all appeals filed against decisions of the Administrative Court.

It is noteworthy that the newly established Administrative Court will not have a second instance within its institutional structure. Many countries in the region and across Europe that have specialised administrative courts have also established a second instance within those specialised courts. It is also interesting that the Administrative Court has not followed the structural model of the Commercial Court and has instead departed from the concept of a one-stop-shop administrative court with two judicial instances capable of rendering enforceable judicial decisions in all administrative disputes.

The idea of establishing a specialised two-tier administrative court in Kosovo is not new. During the legislative procedure for the Law on the Administrative Court, it was recently discussed that the Administrative Court would have two judicial instances. This was even explicitly foreseen in Article 6(1) of the Draft Law on the Administrative Court (approved at the 188^th Meeting of the Government of the Republic of Kosovo through Decision No. 03/188, dated 14 February 2024).

In our view, as the current practice of the Commercial Court demonstrates, the Administrative Court, as a specialised court, should have been established with two instances. Such a structure could have contributed more efficiently to the unification of judicial practice in administrative disputes and to the further specialisation of administrative judges within the Administrative Court. At the same time, this would have allowed the Court of Appeals to focus more efficiently on its role as a second-instance court primarily dealing with criminal and civil cases.

 

The Judgment of the Constitutional Court

The establishment procedure of the Administrative Court was postponed due to the fact that twelve members of the Assembly of Kosovo, through their Referral KO248/24, challenged before the Constitutional Court of Kosovo the constitutionality of Decision [No. 08-V-850] of 5 December 2024 of the Assembly, by which Law No. 08/L-291 on the Administrative Court was adopted. Additionally, the adoption of the Law on the Administrative Court took place during the second reading at an Extraordinary Session of the Assembly held on 5 December 2024. Had the constitutionality of this legislative procedure not been challenged before the Constitutional Court, the Administrative Court, conditionally speaking, would likely have been established in 2025.

The applicants before the Constitutional Court challenged the constitutionality of the procedure for the adoption of Decision [No. 08-V-850] of 5 December 2024 of the Assembly, alleging that it was contrary to the requirements of Articles 74 [Exercise of Function] and 76 [Rules of Procedure] of the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo.

Consequently, the Constitutional Court unanimously, in its Judgment Ref. No: AGJ 2935/26 of 9 January 2026, decided that Decision [No. 08-V-850] of 5 December 2024 of the Assembly, by which Law No. 08/L-291 on the Administrative Court was adopted, is in compliance with Articles 4 [Form of Government and Separation of Power], 7 [Values], 74 [Exercise of Function] and 76 [Rules of Procedure] of the Constitution of the Republic of Kosovo.

Although the entire procedure before the Constitutional Court was initiated for the review of the constitutionality of the legislative adoption procedure of the Law on the Administrative Court, a public perception was unreasonably created that the Constitutional Court was reviewing the constitutionality of the Law on the Administrative Court itself. This perception persisted even after the Constitutional Court delivered its judgment.

 

Options for Enhancing the Judicial Structure for the Adjudication of Administrative Disputes

The Working Group for the Administrative and Labour Court of the Ministry of Justice foresaw three options for enhancing the judicial structure for the adjudication of administrative disputes:

• Option: No Change – Under this option, the status quo of the judicial structure for adjudicating administrative disputes would remain unchanged, with the binomial of the Basic Court of Pristina and Court of Appeals of Kosovo competent for adjudicating administrative disputes between individuals and public authorities, and the Commercial Court of Kosovo competent for adjudicating administrative disputes between businesses and public authorities. Under this option, no progress in the efficiency of adjudicating administrative disputes was expected; on the contrary, a regression was likely due to the increasing number of administrative disputes.
• Option: Strengthening Human Capacities without Institutional or Organisational Changes – This option comprised two targets:
• increasing the number of judges and support staff, and
• implementing specialised training programmes.
• Option: Organisational and Legal Changes – With this option, the following sub-options were envisaged:

a) Sub-option: Expanding the Competence of the Commercial Court to All Administrative Disputes – Under this sub-option, the Law on Commercial Court would have been amended to extend its competence to administrative disputes between individuals and public authorities, previously under the jurisdiction of the Administrative Matters Departments of the Basic Court of Pristina and the Court of Appeals. The Commercial Court, as a two-tier court with its First Instance Chambers and Second Instance Chambers, would thereby have been competent for all administrative disputes in the territory of Kosovo. To reflect this expanded competence, its name would have been changed to the Commercial and Administrative Court.

b) Sub-option: Establishing a New Specialised Administrative Court – Under this sub-option, a new law would have been enacted to establish the Administrative Court of Kosovo, functioning as a general administrative court with its seat in Pristina and general competence over all administrative disputes, whether between individuals and public authorities or business and public authorities, across the entire jurisdiction of Kosovo. This court would have been a two-tier administrative court.

Of all these options and sub-options, it was logical to choose the sub-option involving the necessary organisational and legal changes to establish a new specialised Administrative Court. This sub-option would best achieve the aim of enhancing the judicial structure for the proper adjudication of administrative disputes because, among other reasons:

• First, as current experience with the Commercial Court shows, a specialised court with a one-stop-shop concept, despite its challenges, is generally more efficient in resolving disputes and addressing backlogs.
• Second, a single specialised administrative court would best serve the purpose of unifying judicial practice and further specialising judges in administrative disputes.
• Third, the current status quo was in immediate need of such organisational and legal reform; neither the first option (no change) nor the second option (strengthening human capacities without institutional changes) would have been feasible.
• Fourth, this approach aligns Kosovo with the broader trend in the Western Balkans and Europe, where a large number of countries have already established specialised administrative courts to handle all administrative disputes.

 

Legislative Reforms of Administrative Law

To understand the necessity of legislative reforms in administrative law in Kosovo, it is first essential to consider the approach of society in general, and of the legal community in particular, towards administrative law, disputes, and adjudication.

Unfortunately, a persistent perception remains in Kosovo, even among judges, that administrative law is less important than other legal fields. This begins at law faculties, where administrative law has often been neglected by students and professors, and continues with judges who view appointments to the Administrative Matters Departments as professional denigration, if not punishment. As a result, administrative law has historically been neglected and undervalued in Kosovo. While this analysis does not seek to extend beyond its legal scope into sociological assessment, the societal tendency to undermine administrative law may reflect a pathological pattern instilled by the half-century socio-communist legal regime in Kosovo, where the state and its administrative institutions were considered ideologically infallible and rarely challengeable.

Administrative disputes have generally been neglected, if not marginalised, by the courts. The Basic Court of Pristina, responsible for adjudicating all administrative disputes between individuals and public authorities, prioritised civil cases due to their backlog, and criminal cases due to their specific nature. Similarly, the newly established Commercial Court, competent for administrative disputes between businesses and public authorities, prioritised commercial cases because of its specialisation in commercial litigation. Consequently, there was limited scope for the proper adjudication of administrative disputes. Nonetheless, it should be recognised that the short period of operation of the Administrative Matters Department and the Fiscal Department of the Commercial Court has already improved the quality of adjudication for administrative disputes between businesses and public authorities.

In recent years, administrative cases have gained significant prominence in Kosovo. Unlike previous decades, when administrative judges were often generous in supporting public authorities by validating administrative decisions and applying the informal principle of the inequality between parties in administrative relations, a new generation of professional judges has increasingly challenged irresponsible public authorities.

The rise in the popularity of administrative cases predates the establishment of the Administrative Court. The enactment of Law No. 05/L-031 on General Administrative Procedure (hereinafter: ‘Law on General Administrative Procedure’) and Law No. 08/L-182 on Administrative Disputes (hereinafter: ‘Law on Administrative Disputes’) have played a particularly important role in this development.

 

The Enactment of the Law on General Administrative Procedure

 The Law on General Administrative Procedure, bypassing Law No. 04/L-110 on Construction, for the first time introduced the principle of ‘silence is consent’, also known as the principle of Positive Fictitious Administrative Act, which contrasts sharply with its predecessor, Law No. 02/L-28 on Administrative Procedure, that did not recognise this principle. The introduction and recognition of this principle has directly contributed to the growth of administrative case law and to a change in the approach of administrative judges.

Practically, the introduction of this principle led to a direct increase in the number of administrative cases, as many subjects now have a legal mechanism to challenge public authorities that had previously been slow, negligent, or indifferent towards administrative requests. Initially, many administrative judges were hesitant to apply this principle. However, over time, despite some ongoing challenges within the judiciary, the principle has gradually begun to be applied in administrative case law.

 

The Enactment of the Law on Administrative Disputes

The Law on Administrative Disputes has made administrative case law more significant, as it substantially changed many procedural aspects necessary for proper administrative adjudication. Its predecessor, Law No. 03/L-202 on Administrative Conflicts, in many procedural matters served primarily as a referring law – guiding administrative judges and parties to apply the legislation on civil litigation – rather than as a comprehensive procedural framework that regulates in detail key procedural matters of administrative adjudication. Consequently, administrative judges previously had to expend considerable effort to apply, mutatis mutandis, the legislation on civil litigation in administrative cases, as most procedural matters in the administrative adjudication were governed by it.

The Law on Administrative Disputes aims to provide comprehensive legal protection against all forms of public administration activities, enhance the proactive role of courts in administrative disputes, and increase judicial efficiency in resolving such disputes.

With the entry into force of the Law on Administrative Disputes, an increase in the number of administrative cases is expected. The new law introduces new types of lawsuits in domestic administrative law for the first time. The core purpose of these innovations is to extend the scope of judicial protection against arbitrary administrative actions or inactions, thereby providing more effective safeguards for individuals and businesses against irresponsible public authorities.

 

Extended Competences of the Administrative Court

The Law on Administrative Disputes recognises the authority of administrative courts to decide directly on an entire case. This means that, in addition to addressing the administrative aspects of a dispute, administrative courts can now also adjudicate the civil components of such cases.

This expansion of competences not only increases the authority of administrative courts but also enhances judicial efficiency, as it eliminates the need to initiate separate civil proceedings for compensation after the administrative component of a case has been concluded. Currently, there are numerous judicial decisions in which administrative matters departments have applied this rule, deciding cases in their entirety and addressing both administrative and civil matters.

 

The Competence of the Supreme Court of Kosovo for the Abrogation of Sublegal Normative Acts

Another particularly noteworthy development introduced by the Law on Administrative Disputes is the competence granted to the Supreme Court of Kosovo to decide on the abrogation – whether complete or partial – of sublegal normative acts. Specifically, Article 10(4) of the Law on Administrative Disputes, for the first time, recognises the authority of the Supreme Court to review and abrogate such acts.

The action against sublegal normative acts, provided for by Article 13(1.6) of the Law on the Administrative Disputes, has proved to be a particularly strong and efficient legal mechanism, one that many subjects, especially businesses, had long needed. Immediately after the entry into force of the new Law on Administrative Disputes, numerous such lawsuits were filed before the Supreme Court, and these initiatives continue to be actively pursued.

The Supreme Court, in turn, has been notably responsive to these claims and has maintained a practice of deciding on them within a relatively short period of time following the completion of submissions by the parties. Judicial hearing sessions and subsequent decisions have often followed within a matter of months, after the finalisation of the parties’ filings.

Through this competence, the Supreme Court now holds a particularly strong authority to abrogate sublegal normative acts – contested by interested parties – that have been enacted by public authorities in an unfair or unlawful manner. Although the entry into force of the Law on Administrative Disputes (2025) is still recent, the Supreme Court has already decided several administrative disputes concerning the abrogation of sublegal normative acts, some of which have been among the most prominent cases in the country.

 

Introduction of the ‘Loser-Pays’ Principle in the Administrative Adjudication

Although not as significant as the two previously discussed reforms, the entry into force of the Law on Administrative Disputes has also contributed to increasing the importance of administrative case law. For the first time, according to Article 101(1) of the Law on Administrative Disputes, judicial parties are entitled to seek compensation for their procedural expenses in administrative adjudication. Through this provision, the Law on Administrative Disputes effectively introduced the ‘loser-pays’ principle for plaintiffs in administrative adjudication.

However, pursuant to Article 101(3) of the Law on Administrative Disputes, this principle does not apply to respondents in administrative adjudication. Public authorities, acting as respondents, must in all cases bear their own procedural expenses, regardless of the outcome of the proceedings.

The introduction of this principle has attracted the attention of many attorneys, encouraging them to approach administrative cases more seriously, particularly because the possibility of reimbursement of procedural expenses is now clearer and more accessible. As practice has shown, the previous absence of such a principle had discouraged many financially disadvantaged subjects from seeking the accountability of public authorities and, as a result, had undermined their fundamental right of access to justice.

 

Conclusion

With the establishment of the Administrative Court, in addition to creating a specialised judicial institution for administrative disputes, it is expected that judicial efficiency in adjudicating such disputes will increase and that cases will be resolved more swiftly in Kosovo.

However, as the experience with the establishment of the Commercial Court of Kosovo has shown, the initial phase of operation of the Administrative Court is likely to require significant institutional effort dedicated to logistical arrangements, systematisation, and transfer of pending cases. During this initial period, the court’s institutional energy may therefore be directed towards organisational consolidation rather than towards demonstrating its expected level of specialisation and efficiency.

Only after a certain period following the operationalisation of the court, can the Administrative Court reasonably be expected to demonstrate the anticipated improvements in specialisation and efficiency. For this reason, the feasibility and effectiveness of this reform can be properly assessed only through an ex post evaluation conducted several years after the court becomes fully operational.

 

By Kujtim Kërveshi, Managing Partner, and Agon Drini, Associate, “Kerveshi & Partners” Law Firm

 

Note: This publication is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For administrative matters requiring professional legal advice or legal representation, please contact “Kerveshi & Partners” L.L.C.