The Supreme Court of Kosovo has ruled in favor of the plaintiffs L.S., N.Q., T.S., and S.M., in their case against the Ministry of Finance, Labor, and Transfers (MFPT), by declaring unlawful and annulling Article 14.A, paragraph 1, subparagraph 5 of Administrative Instruction No. 01/2025 (MPMS). The annulled provision had restricted the right of Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) veterans to receive financial compensation based on their employment status.
The Court found that the recent amendments to the Law on the Status and Rights of Martyrs, Invalids, Veterans, and Members of the Kosovo Liberation Army and Their Families had created legal ambiguity regarding whether employment constitutes a criterion for entitlement to financial benefits.
After analyzing the amended provisions, the Court concluded that the reformulation of the relevant article caused confusion over whether this right applies only to veterans employed in the private sector or also to those employed in the public sector.
Referring to Article 16A, paragraph 5 of the amended law, which states that:
“KLA war veterans who work outside institutions funded by the budget of the Republic of Kosovo, as well as outside public enterprises, shall equally enjoy up to 50% of the foreseen amount, but the total shall not exceed 0.7% of the Gross Domestic Product,”
the Court interpreted that the legislator’s intent was to exclude only those employed in publicly funded institutions or enterprises, while veterans employed in the private sector remain entitled to compensation within legal limits.
Thus, the right to financial benefit does not depend on the existence of employment itself, but on the nature of the employer and whether the salary is funded by the state budget.
In this context, the Court ruled that the Ministry’s requirement for veterans to submit a document from the Kosovo Tax Administration (ATK) proving they are “not employed” — as a condition for compensation — contradicts the current legal framework.
Therefore, the Supreme Court declared that the administrative instruction must be annulled or harmonized with the amended law to ensure vertical consistency between legal acts and the fair and uniform application of the law.
In conclusion, the Court found that the phrase “not employed” cannot serve as a legal criterion for limiting veterans’ rights to financial compensation, as long as they are not paid from the state budget.
Furthermore, the Court noted that since the adoption of Law No. 05/L-141, the Ministry was obligated to align administrative instructions with legislative changes. Its failure to amend Administrative Instruction No. 01/2015 — despite subsequent legislative updates in 2017 — violated legal certainty and created confusion regarding the rights guaranteed by law.
