FLASH
Shkruar nga Klodian Tomorri
Do you understand what kind of Constitutional Court we have? A bunch of worthless idiots who twist the Constitution according to the interests of whoever holds the reins.
When the Democratic Party attempted to overturn Olta Xhaçka's mandate on the Constitutional Court with a motion in the Assembly by 1/10 of the deputies, the Socialist Party blocked the motion. Faced with a blockade by the Socialists, who did not want to release Xhaçka, the opposition chose the alternative path of putting the Constitutional Court in motion. This was the direct request of 1/5 of the deputies.
Nearly 30 Democratic Party deputies asked the Constitutional Court to determine the incompatibility of Xhaçka's mandate, after her husband, Artan Gaçi, was declared a strategic investor and was granted the right to use the seashore in front of the hotel by government decision.
But what did the Constitutional Court do? It rejected the request of the opposition MPs with the argument that the Court is not set in motion by direct request of MPs, but only by the Assembly.
"The determination of incompatibility and termination of the mandate of a deputy for violation of point 3 of Article 70 of the Constitution is a matter that falls within the jurisdiction of the Court, a jurisdiction that is activated only at the request of the Assembly. As long as the latter has not decided to send the case to the Court, its jurisdiction to determine incompatibility in the exercise of the mandate of deputy Olta Xhaçka for violation of the prohibitions under point 3 of Article 70 of the Constitution has not been activated," the Constitutional Court's reasoned decision stated.
Constitutional Court decision on the “Xhaçka” case
Time passed and the issue of the incompatibility of a deputy's mandate was raised again. This time it was the mandate of Socialist deputy Vullnet Sinaj, who turned out to have benefited from public money in the Big Market supermarket chain from state institutions, albeit in small amounts.
What did the Constitutional Court do this time? It rejected the request with a somewhat similar interpretation, but among other things in the rejection decision it said the following: “The Court reiterates that in any case one-tenth of the deputies has the right to request from the Assembly by motion to send to the Court the issue of the deputy’s incompatibility in the exercise of the mandate and in the event of the rejection of such a motion, the right of no less than one-fifth of the deputies to directly initiate the constitutional trial for the substantive examination of the issue of incompatibility and the declaration of the end of the deputy’s mandate is activated.”
So when opposition MPs went directly to the Constitutional Court to remove Xhaçka's mandate, the Constitutional Court turned them away, telling them that they cannot come directly, but that an Assembly decision is needed to put the Constitutional Court into motion.
In the Vullnet Sinaj Case, the same Court says that if the Assembly blocks the request and does not make a decision, then the deputies can come directly to the Constitutional Court.
Do you understand what kind of Constitutional Court we have? A bunch of worthless idiots who twist the Constitution according to the interests of whoever holds the reins.
This is constitutional prostitution. And this is the Constitutional Prostitution Court.
Long live the new, reformed, but expensive justice system.
Lini një Përgjigje