FLASH
Shkruar nga Pamfleti
The Commission's claims about the existence of an immediate and irreparable damage that could result from the execution of the final judicial decision of the Administrative Appeal - which forces the publication of the name of the private sponsor who financed a luxury activity on the coast, are evaluated by Supreme Court as hypothetical, without any legal argument.
The Administrative College of the Supreme Court has described as hypothetical the submissions of the Independent Qualification Commission, KPK about the arrival of serious and irreparable consequences from the execution of the final decision of the Court of Administrative Appeals, which forces it to publish the name of the sponsor of an activity at the luxury resort "Marina Bay" in Vlora, in September 2021.
In the reasoned decision of the Supreme Court, the entire progress of the process is presented, from the submission of the request for information that BIRN addressed to the Commission regarding the sources of expenses of this activity; the process before the Commissioner for the Right to Information and Protection of Personal Data that ordered the full copy of the sponsorship agreement to be made available; the decision-making of the Administrative Court of the First Instance of Tirana, which gave the right to the KPK, taking into consideration the financial consequences for this institution; the decision of the Court of Administrative Appeals that definitively obliges the provision of complete data; as well as the Commission's detailed submissions in the request for the suspension of the execution of this decision, which appear to be similar to the claims presented in the appeal that is expected to be examined on June 11.
" The College finds that the petitioner has not presented any legal argument in function of the request for the suspension of the execution of the decision of the Administrative Court of Appeal. The reasons presented in the request for the suspension of the execution of the decision of the Administrative Court of Appeal basically aim to oppose the legality of this decision-making ", assesses the Administrative Board, chaired by judge Sokol Sadushi and with members judges Gentian Medja and Sokol Ngresi.
They reason that, for the appointment by the court of temporary procedural measures, the law requires the existence of a reasonable doubt, that the subjective right or the legal interest of the subject suing or complaining is violated by the actions or inactions of the opposing party or the decision of the court. They add that it is required that in the circumstances of the case there is an immediate and known risk of causing serious and irreparable damage if the temporary measure is not taken by the court.
According to the Supreme Court, the arguments presented by the requesting party must be concrete and refer to facts and evidence that prove their existence.
" As a general rule, only the legal reasons for the content of the appeal are not sufficient to accept the request for the suspension of the execution of the final court decision, since the review of the appeal differs from the review of the request for suspension ," the Court of Up.
" The lack of these legal arguments in the presented request leads to the non-acceptance of the request for suspension ", assesses the Administrative College and underlines that court decisions are mandatory to be implemented.
" Regarding the specific case, the College notes that the petitioner hypothetically presents the possibility of serious and irreparable consequences by connecting his position with issues that do not belong to the procedure of suspending the execution of a final decision, but to a phase other related to the legal basis of the causes of recourse ", the Supreme Court notes, and based on these reasons, it has decided not to accept the request for the suspension of the execution of the decision that forces the KPK to make available a full copy of the document requested.
The Independent Qualification Commission is a constitutional institution, created within the framework of the Justice Reform for the vetting of judges and prosecutors, with the ultimate goal of restoring public confidence in justice.
Throughout his mandate, hundreds of magistrates have been accountable to the KPK and have been penalized with dismissal for gifts or sponsorships received from third parties, which have been assessed in light of a potential conflict or apparent interest. KPK members themselves refuse to be held to the same standard, keeping secret the name of a sponsor who funded an event in 2021.
" ...On what basis should the standard of transparency, already applied during the vettiung process of judges in office, not be applied to quasi-judge commissioners as well?" ”, asks the Administrative Appeal panel. / BIRN
Lini një Përgjigje