FLASH
Shkruar nga Pamfleti
According to the Special Prosecution Office, the Constitutional Court itself has previously addressed similar issues, arguing that each institution exercises its own powers and that no body interferes in the decision-making of another...
SPAK representatives have defended their position, also upheld by the GJKKO, regarding the suspension of Belinda Balluku from government positions, after she was informed of the charges related to several tenders that were under investigation by the Special Prosecution Office.
Belinda Balluku has been named as a defendant by SPAK for the 190 million euro tender for the Llogara Tunnel, but also for the investigation of 7 lots of the Greater Ring Road.
Three hours after the Constitutional Court began reviewing the Prime Minister's request to overturn the GJKKO decision, SPAK representatives, presenting their arguments to the Court, said that there is no conflict of competence. According to the prosecutor, security measures are individual decisions
According to SPAK, the requesting party (the Prime Minister) is not legitimate as a procedural subject to activate the control of the Constitutional Court, as it is not a direct subject and has not proven the existence of a personal and current interest, accompanied by irreparable consequences or a concrete risk from its execution.
"The applicant's claims are based on interpretations of the law, without proving the existence of a violated legal relationship with concrete consequences," SPAK's position states.
According to the prosecution, no conflict of powers has been found in this case and there is no real constitutional issue that would justify the intervention of the Constitutional Court.
SPAK emphasizes that no conflict of competences can be claimed between the GJKKO and the Prime Minister.
According to the Special Prosecution Office, the Constitutional Court itself has previously addressed similar issues, arguing that each institution exercises its own powers and that no body interferes in the decision-making of another. For the existence of a conflict of powers, three legal criteria must be met, which, according to SPAK, are not met in this specific case.
SPAK assesses that the Prime Minister's request does not represent a conflict of powers between the powers, as security measures do not create such a conflict. It is also emphasized that the applicant cannot use this claim to block the criminal investigation against a minister, as criminal prosecution is the exclusive competence of SPAK and the GJKKO and cannot be violated by the executive branch.
SPAK also underlines that the legal system provides for clear avenues of appeal, including the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court, guaranteeing the procedural rights of the parties.
Regarding the claim that the suspension of the Deputy Prime Minister has blocked the normal functioning of the Council of Ministers, SPAK considers it unfounded, clarifying that the security measure was imposed on the individual and does not affect the institutional functioning of the government.
The government requests from the Constitutional Court the annulment of the GJKKO decision on the measure against Balluk.
The Constitutional Court's decision will come at a time when SPAK has also submitted to the Assembly a request for authorization to arrest Balluk. This move by SPAK came immediately after the Constitutional Court reinstated Balluk in office pending the review of the appeal, while the next meeting of the Mandates Council is on January 28. /Pamphlet/
Lini një Përgjigje