Flaka Xhelili Zekaj
September 2026
Kosovo’s Administrative Court began operating on 5 May 2026. In September, Judge Kreshnik Kaçiu was appointed President of the Court.
These developments mark an important step in establishing specialised administrative justice in Kosovo. But for the commercial justice system, the significance of the new Court goes further: less than four years after the Commercial Court became operational, Kosovo has materially changed the jurisdictional architecture on which that reform was built.
The Commercial Court Was Designed as a “Single Window”
The Commercial Court was established in 2022 following sustained calls from the private sector for a specialised forum for business disputes. Its original jurisdiction extended beyond purely commercial disputes to include business-related administrative cases.
The objective was not simply to create another specialised court. It was to give businesses a “single window” for a broad range of disputes connected to their commercial activities, while consolidating first-instance and appellate functions within the same specialised institution.
The reform was therefore about how businesses navigate the justice system, not only about where cases are heard.
And despite significant structural constraints, the Commercial Court began showing measurable improvements relatively early. By early 2023, it had achieved a sustained period in which it was resolving more cases than it was receiving.
Less Than Four Years Later, the Model Has Changed
The establishment of the Administrative Court has altered that architecture.
The Administrative Court Law, published in January 2026, amended the legislation governing the Commercial Court. Among other changes, it removed the Commercial Court’s jurisdiction over administrative conflicts of commercial entities and related administrative matters, transferring those matters into the new administrative-court framework. The Commercial Court continues to exercise jurisdiction over commercial matters within its amended legal mandate.
The result is more than the addition of a new institution. It is a change to a model that Kosovo had put in place less than four years earlier.
That timing matters. Judicial institutions need time to build jurisprudence, develop internal processes, establish relationships with practitioners and businesses, and demonstrate whether the reforms for which they were created are producing sustainable results.
The question, therefore, is not whether specialised administrative adjudication has a legitimate place in Kosovo’s justice system. The more important question is whether successive reforms, viewed together, are producing a coherent commercial justice system.
What Happened to the “Single Window”?
The less discussed consequence for businesses is that the Commercial Court’s single-window model has narrowed.
A dispute involving a business and a public authority does not necessarily cease to have commercial significance simply because it involves an exercise of administrative power. A company’s investment, licence, regulatory relationship, tax position or other commercial activity may generate issues that sit across the commercial-administrative boundary.
Under the original Commercial Court model, a broader range of those disputes could be addressed within one specialised institution.
That is no longer the case.
Businesses must now pay closer attention to the legal character of a dispute at the outset: whether it is commercial or administrative, which court has jurisdiction, and whether related issues may need to be pursued before different institutions.
In practical terms, Kosovo has moved from a broader single-window model toward a more divided specialised-court structure.
Specialisation and Institutional Continuity
There is a legitimate rationale for specialised administrative adjudication. Administrative disputes raise questions concerning public authority, regulatory decision-making and the legality of administrative action that are distinct from many purely commercial disputes.
The issue, therefore, is not whether specialisation is desirable in itself.
The question is whether specialisation and institutional continuity can coexist.
The Commercial Court reform was intended to address fragmentation by creating a specialised institution responsive to the needs of the business community. Its early development showed that consolidation and specialisation could produce tangible improvements even under difficult conditions.
Less than four years later, one important element of that consolidation has changed: business-related administrative disputes have been separated from the Commercial Court and placed within a distinct judicial institution.
That creates a tension between two legitimate objectives—specialisation and consolidation—that will need to be resolved in practice.
What This Means for Businesses
For businesses and investors, the key issue is understanding where a dispute belongs.
With the Administrative Court now handling administrative disputes involving commercial entities, businesses must assess at an early stage whether a dispute is commercial or administrative, which court has jurisdiction, and whether related issues may need to be pursued separately.
As both courts develop their jurisprudence, this division of jurisdiction will become increasingly relevant to litigation strategy, regulatory disputes and business activities involving public authorities.
The broader challenge is ensuring that Kosovo’s specialised justice system remains coherent and predictable for businesses navigating it.
FXZ Law will continue to monitor how this division of jurisdiction develops and what it means for businesses and investors operating in Kosovo.
Leave a Reply