Abstract
The article examines the constitutional position of the president of republic in the view of the appointment procedure established in Hamiti et al and Derguti et al. Both constitutional court decisions have construed a rhetorical interpretation of the expected role of the president of republic as representative of the unity of the people in a constitutional nutshell. The article questions both decisions’ structural rationality and legitimacy in what is likely a tough political controversy requiring two-third majority for the appointment of the president of republic in the first two rounds. To better designate the logic upon which the court relied when ruling in the two decisions, the article considers relevant comparative literature and case-law to channel the analysis. The article concludes that though the court demonstrated a rather activist tone in interpreting the procedure for the appointment of the president of republic, it also showed quite unprecedented willingness to constitutionally empower the position of the president of republic on basis of appointment-related preconditions.