Shyqyri Haxha, the former head of the Post and Telecommunications of Kosovo (PTK) was indicted in 2020 after signing a damaging contract that led to a loss of over €9 million in public funds. According to the prosecution, Haxha signed a contract with the company Amdocs on behalf of PTK for a project that lacked prior approval from the Government of Kosovo. Following the government’s order to unilaterally terminate the unauthorized contract, PTK was forced to pay over €9 million in damages to Amdocs through arbitration proceedings. Haxha was acquitted in 2023, leaving no one held accountable for the loss of public funds.

On 21 October 2020, the Basic Prosecution in Pristina indicted Haxha for the criminal offence of signing a harmful contract.

According to the indictment, on 8 March 2010, PTK submitted its 2010 business plan — which included the "PTK Billing Platform Lot 1 and Lot 2" project — to its shareholder, the Government of Kosovo, for review and approval. Although the plan was still under review, the indictment alleged that on 16 April 2010, Haxha, acting in his capacity as chief executive officer of PTK and with the intent to cause material damage, exceeded his legal authority and signed a contract with Amdocs Development Limited for the project without the required approval.

On 14 May 2010, the government ordered PTK to unilaterally terminate the contract with Amdocs, since Haxha’s actions were unauthorized. On 20 May 2010, the government also provided PTK with a list of approved projects, which excluded the PTK Billing Platform project (see here).

Following the unilateral termination of the contract, Amdocs initiated arbitration proceedings against PTK, seeking compensation for damages. The Arbitration Tribunal in London ruled in favour of Amdocs, ordering PTK to pay €9,000,000.00 in damages and an additional €891,022.81 for related expenses. The total payment of €9,891,022.81 caused significant financial harm to PTK (see here).

For these actions, Haxha was charged with the criminal offence of signing a harmful contract. His conduct also violated the statute of PTK, which requires review and approval by shareholders of the public company’s annual business plan prior to implementation. Additionally, Haxha's actions allegedly contravened the Law on Public Enterprises.

At the initial hearing on 6 April 2021, Haxha pleaded not guilty. On 27 August 2021, the Basic Court in Prishtina confirmed the indictment, rejecting the defence’s request to dismiss the case and its claim that the investigation deadline had expired. On 22 September 2021, the Court of Appeals upheld the Basic Court’s decision.

The main trial began on 27 May 2022 before the Basic Court in Pristina. In their opening statements, the prosecution argued that the indictment was well-supported by evidence. In contrast, the defence claimed violations of the defendant’s fundamental human rights and underlined the prosecution's alleged failure to conclude the investigation within the prescribed 24-month period. The defence further argued that Haxha had endured 12 years of legal persecution, which had severely impacted his personal and professional integrity.

During the proceedings, Haxha claimed he was the victim of political persecution and defended his decisions as head of PTK. He specifically argued that the disputed billing project was the best initiative to enhance the value of Telekom — a business unit of PTK — and that political interference had disrupted it, causing harm to Telekom Kosovo. The defence also maintained that Haxha’s signature on the contract was ceremonial and held no legal effect. The prosecutor, in contrast, emphasised that the contract was signed without the required approval from the government and argued that the evidence presented was conclusive.

On 3 March 2023, the Basic Court in Pristina acquitted Haxha. Presiding Judge Sabit Sadikaj explained that the disputed contract became legally effective with the signatures of the PTK procurement officer and the representative of Amdocs, while Haxha’s signature did not create any obligations for PTK.

The prosecution appealed this ruling, citing violations of criminal procedure, incorrect and incomplete determination of the factual situation, and breaches of criminal law. In October 2023, the Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance decision, rejecting the claims made by the State Prosecutor's Office. The Court of Appeal concluded that the charges against the defendant had not been proven and that his actions did not constitute a criminal offence.

The state prosecutor submitted a request for the protection of legality to the Supreme Court, challenging the appeal court's final decision. On 24 December 2024, the Supreme Court also upheld Haxha's acquittal.

The Supreme Court confirmed that Haxha's signature on the contract was ceremonial, as the contract had already been requested by PTK’s departments and approved in advance by the Board of Directors. The Court noted that the legal provisions governing public enterprises and the PTK statute did not grant the CEO the authority alleged by the prosecution, which instead rests with the Board of Directors.

Besides the Amdocs contract case, Haxha was previously accused of entering into a harmful contract with Z-Mobile, for which he was acquitted in 2013. He has also been involved in other legal cases. During the trial, Haxha described the repeated accusations as a form of persecution influenced by political factors.

The case illustrates how errors committed within a state-owned enterprise resulted in significant damage to the public budget. After three court rulings, no one was held accountable for the over €9 million in public funds that PTK was compelled to pay during arbitration. It is also important to note that the prosecution filed the indictment ten years after the signing of the disputed contract, highlighting the delay in investigating the potential wrongdoing. The case also reflects the prosecution's failure to present a strong case, including insufficient evidence to support its claims. Ultimately, the case underscores the critical need for oversight of government-controlled companies managing public funds.