Supported by the British Embassy Pristina

Outcomes of Completed Processes

This page lists the results of completed processes since the start of the project in September 2016.  The scores are published at the request of the British Embassy, in line with the Memorandum of Understanding.  The purpose of the publication is to improve the transparency of selection processes for senior public officials, and has been progressed after consultation with the Kosovo National Agency for the Protection of Personal Data.


For each process, the dates of interviews are shown, along with the names and implementation partner scores for the candidates considered appointable 

by the Implementation Partners.

At the final interview stage of each process, all candidates completed a structured competency-based interview, presentation and psychometric test. 

The maximum number of available points does vary between processes, depending on the format of the specific assessment. The maximum available score for each process is shown below.

Commission members and the Implementation Partners score candidates independently of one another.  The scores awarded by each assessor are averaged (separately for Commission and Implementation Partners) to produce two sets of final candidate scores (one set each for Commission and Implementation Partners).

For each process, the Commission will submit a list of recommended candidates, along with scores, to the appropriate bodies as outlined in the relevant regulations.  

For each process, the Implementation Partners will submit a confidential report for the British Embassy.  This report includes both their own and the Commission's scores, along with any observations about candidate performance in the selection process.  These reports are shared with both the Prime Minister and Speaker, in line with the Memorandum of Understanding.  For Municipal Publicly Owned Enterprises, the confidential reports are shared with the relevant Mayor.

The scores shown below are those awarded by the Implementation Partners only.

Candidate identity is anonymised (e.g. Candidate 1) where this has been explicitly requested by the candidate.

Only the highest performing candidates are listed here.  Other candidates may have been assessed within the process, but will have been awarded lower scores by the Implementation Partners than those shown here.

The scores and conclusions highlighted here apply only to the specific selection process described.  Inference should not be drawn about suitability or competence of individuals to perform in another role.

The scores and conclusions are based on the performance of the candidate within this specific selection process.