THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE, composed of Judge Malcolm ...

REPUBLIKA E KOSOVËS/ REPUBLIKA KOSOVA/ REPUBLIC OF KOSOVA
KËSHILLI GJYQËSOR I KOSOVËS/ SUDSKI SAVET КOSOVA/ KOSOVO JUDICIAL COUNCIL
KD56/2011
THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE, composed of Judge Malcolm Simmons – Deputy
President, Judge Gerrit Sprenger and Lawyer Biljaip Maznikar - members, reviewing the
question of disciplinary responsibility against Mr. xxxxx xxxxx, judge of Municipal Court in
xxxx, charged as per the final re[ports of the Office for Disciplinary Committee (ODC) no:
JIU-2006-019, with misconduct committed as defined by article 7.11 item (e) pursuant to the
UNMIK Regulation no:2001/8 on Establishment of Kosovo Judicial and Prosecutorial
Council, breach of the Code of Ethics and Conduct for judges, which provides the General
Principles and B, III Administrative Responsibility under 1 5 , after the hearing held on
01.12.2011, in the presence of ODC representative and Ms. Teuta Ibrahimi and of the Judge
xxxxx xxxxx, took this:
D E C I S I O N
Mr. xxxx xxxx, judge of Municipal Court in xxxx was not found responsible in the ODC
report no: JIU-2006-019, and so the Disciplinary Committee concluded, due to the lack of
misconduct committed by, to release him from disciplinary responsibility.
R e a s o n i n g
On 31.08.2010, the ODC submitted to the KJC Disciplinary Committee its final report
having attached the case files as well, in which Judge xxxxx would have been charged with
misconduct committed as defined by article 7.11 item (e) of UNMIK Regulation No: 2001/8.
At the hearing held on 01.12.2011, as per the ODC report no: JIU-2006-19, the allegations
related to the complaint that Mr. Myrtaj submitted to, appointed as lay-judge in 2004 to be
part of Judge xxxxx’s panel, was never assigned by the said judge to serve on a court trial.
The ODC representative stated that the Court President had been charged with the main
responsibility, but he was not implied to be investigated because he had failed to be
appointed as judge or as President, mentioning that judge’s misconduct had faded
significantly, and requested the DC to take this into account as mitigating circumstance.

Judge xxxxx, stated that there were two lay-judges assigned by the President and
administrator of the Court to accompany him who had had very difficult financial status in
their families and he had called them to come to the hearings accordingly. In 2006, Judge
xxxxx got informed about Mr. xxxxx, who already had been employed in Prishtina, because
all other lay-judges were retired or unemployed. Judge xxxxx had tried to contact Mr. Myrtaj
several times but he had no access to the telephone services.
The ODC representative, in its closing argument, stated that the only responsibility to Judge
xxxxxx had been that he failed to ever call the lay- judge, and therefore supported its final
report, otherwise the DC was to take a decision on.
Judge xxxxxx, in his closing argument, stated that he had never caused any injustices to
anyone, in particular to the lay-judges that helped a lot regular judges, and his intention for
them was always to come to the hearing those who had more difficult financial status.
The submissions made by Judge xxxxx were, in part, contradictory. He stated that he had on
several occasions attempted to contact Mr. xxxxx but had been unable to speak with him.
However, he further stated it was his intention to assign Lay Judges who were in financial
need.
However, having found as a fact that Judge xxxxx chose to select Lay Judges who, in his
opinion, were in need of the per diem they would receive by sitting as Lay Judges the Panel
found that no disciplinary violation had been committed.
Regarding this, the Committee, after assuming all evidence and self-protection of the judge,
in its session for counselling and voting, decided unanimously Judge xxxxxx be released
from disciplinary responsibility.
Based on the factual situation, the Committee decided as in enacting clause of this decision.

LEGAL REMEDIES:
DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE
DC- 56 /2011, date: 01/12/2011
In accordance with article 39, paragraph 1 and 2 of the Law on KJC, a party may file an
appeal to the KJC within 15 days from the day of receiving the final decision.
Please find attached the form A.
Cc;
Mr. Enver Peci,Chair, KJC;
Mr. Albert Avdiu, Director, KJCS;
Mr. Kadri Begolli, Acting Director, ODC;
Mr. xxxxx xxxx, judge of Municipal Court in xxxx;
Ms. Xxxxx xxxxxx, Acting President of Municipal Court in xxxx.