Judicial dialogue is a cornerstone for maintaining a coherent and consistent legal order and ensuring the protection of human rights. To facilitate this crucial process, our project is actively supporting thematic roundtables between the Constitutional Court of Kosovo*[1] and ordinary courts of all jurisdictions, addressing issues of mutual concern in their judicial practice. The overarching aim is to ensure that the interpretation of fundamental rights by ordinary courts aligns seamlessly with the high standards set by the Constitutional Court and the European Court of Human Rights.

The most recent event brought together 20 judges and legal advisors from the Constitutional Court and, for the first time since its establishment three years ago, the Commercial Court based in Pristina. This landmark gathering provided a platform for valuable exchange between the two courts on topics of common interest, including incidental control and the right to a fair trial. The first session of the roundtable focused on the important role of ordinary courts in the review of the constitutionality of legal acts, often referred to as incidental control, specifically within the framework of commercial law. Participants delved into several cases where the Supreme, Appellate, and Basic courts had referred specific provisions of legal acts to the Constitutional Court. Particular attention was given to referrals involving legal acts relevant to the jurisdiction of the Commercial Court in property rights, including cases of expropriation, the categorization of pension contribution beneficiaries, and the confiscation of property obtained through criminal offenses.

The second session addressed the right to a fair and impartial trial, with a special emphasis on adversarial proceedings, the prevention of incorrect or arbitrary interpretation and application of the law, and the paramount right to a reasoned judicial decision. Participants engaged in productive discussions on several cases from the Constitutional Court's practice involving alleged violations of the right to a fair trial in conjunction with the right to peaceful enjoyment of property. These cases included complaints regarding decisions of ordinary courts concerning the construction of hydropower plants by private investors, a dispute on land parcel ownership between a private company and public entity, the non-payment of employment benefits to individuals by employers, and unlawful termination of employment for workers of the private company.

Representatives of the Commercial Court actively elaborated on and sought clarification regarding dilemmas in the interpretation of certain contradictory provisions in different laws, as well as unclear divisions of jurisdiction in some cases with the Administrative Court.

In their concluding remarks, representatives from both courts underscored the significant value and usefulness of dialogue and exchange between the Constitutional Court and ordinary courts. They unanimously agreed to continue with joint thematic roundtables in the future. Our project remains committed to supporting these efforts, as well as facilitating dialogue meetings with other ordinary courts.