FLASH
Shkruar nga Pamfleti
The recent decision of the Constitutional Court has created an unprecedented situation of legal uncertainty, failing to provide a definitive answer to a matter of high public interest and opening a fierce debate on the relationship between powers and the competences of the judiciary.
Invited to a live broadcast on Ora News, analyst Ben Andoni described the decision as problematic, emphasizing that the main concern is related to the fact that the Constitutional Court has failed to provide clear legal guidance.
“ What concerns all of us, Albanians, is that justice must be extremely careful and extremely professional, so as not to leave such ambiguities ,” Andoni said. According to him, decisions of this nature should create legal certainty and not confusion.
The analyst also pointed out the structural problem of the Constitutional Court, which currently functions with eight members and not nine, as the Constitution provides. “ The Constitutional Court has a handicap, because it should have nine members and it has eight. Its decisions should be such that, even when there are disagreements between groups, there should at least be a common logical line on which to base subsequent legal reasoning ,” he emphasized.
According to Andoni, the Court did not focus on the essence of the request submitted by the Prime Minister, but stopped at secondary elements. “ From what it seems, this part facing Mr. Rama has been all against him. They did not deal with the real request of Mr. Rama, which was whether or not the GJKKO has the authority to take this action, but focused on two other elements ,” the analyst said.
He explained that there have been two different positions within the Court: one side defends the thesis that MPs have not enjoyed full immunity for years, even when they are also ministers, while the other side supports the idea that representatives of the executive have a type of protection that justice cannot easily violate.
" The most unclear people at this moment are the people of justice. And when the people of justice are unclear, how can we ordinary people be? ", Andoni said, underlining the consequences that this situation has on public perception.
According to him, the Constitutional Court should have given a direct and clear response to the request submitted by the Prime Minister on behalf of the executive: “ The answer that the Constitutional Court should have given was very clear: does the GJKKO have the right to dismiss or not. When this answer is given equivocally and with such verdicts, almost hermaphroditic, the public debate becomes extremely difficult. ”
Gjykata Kushtetuese është shprehur qartë, por sekush mund ta intepretojë sipas afërsisë që ka me palën humbëse.Nëtë rast humbësi i madh është Kryeministri dhe Zv/ e tij. 4-4 lexohet edhe kështu: Vendimi nuk është një normë kushtetuese, pra jo çdo kërkesë që vjen nga organet e drejtësisë për Këshillin e Ministrave zbatohet automatikisht. Frika e Kryeministrit se vendimi mund të bëhet preçedent dhe drejtësia i troket te dera e tij, ngjitur me zyrën e Ballukes, nuk ka bazë.Rast pas rasti. Për sejcilin Gjykata Kushtetuese do të duhet të mblidhet sërish. Dhe për sejcilin, ka të rezervuar, feste, borselinë, kapele, shall, shami dhe kollare.