Search

This project explores the application of European rule of law standards by constitutional courts in transitional democracies, with a comparative focus on Kosovo as a primary case study alongside Albania, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. It examines how constitutional courts engage with the normative frameworks developed by the CJEU, ECHR, and the Venice Commission, particularly in cases involving judicial independence, separation of powers, and fundamental rights. While these European bodies have generated a corpus of binding and advisory jurisprudence, their reception in domestic constitutional reasoning remains uneven and context-dependent. The analysis adopts a mixed-methods approach, combining doctrinal legal analysis, comparative case studies, and qualitative interviews with CJEU and ECHR judges and legal advisors. Key jurisprudential developments—such as the CJEU’s emphasis on effective judicial protection, the ECHR’s standards on judicial accountability, and Venice Commission opinions on institutional reform—are used to assess their incorporation into national constitutional judgments. By identifying structural and normative gaps in the application of European rule of law standards, the study offers practical recommendations to enhance judicial coherence and legitimacy in the Western Balkans. The findings will contribute to broader debates on European constitutional pluralism, judicial dialogue, and the conditionality mechanisms of EU enlargement.