FLASH
Shkruar nga Pamfleti
In substantive terms, the Court assessed the proportionality of the house arrest measure in terms of necessity, appropriateness and severity.
The Constitutional Court today rejected the request filed by former Prime Minister Sali Berisha regarding his claim for the security measure of 'house arrest', where the democratic leader remained isolated for 333 days.
Berisha addressed the Constitutional Court with the claim that SPAK had violated the Constitution regarding the imposition of this security measure.
But the Constitutional Court in its decision considers the claim raised by the former Prime Minister to be unfounded.
"In the substantive aspect, the Court assessed the proportionality of the house arrest measure in terms of necessity, appropriateness and severity," the Constitutional Court states.
Berisha launched a legal battle with SPAK after the security measures were imposed against him, but without managing to win any of them in the courts.
The Constitutional Court has even considered the first measure imposed on him, that of the obligation to appear, as in accordance with the Constitution, which Berisha did not respect and consequently led SPAK to tighten the security measure to "house arrest".
This measure was opposed by Berisha in the Albanian judiciary and his requests were rejected. It is not known whether Berisha will continue the battle in Strasbourg, as he has warned. Today, the leader of the DP has a security measure of 'compulsory appearance' imposed by the Appeals Court of Kosovo.
DECISION NOTICE
On 17.01.2025, the Constitutional Court (Court) considered the case with the applicant Sali Berisha, with the aim of annulling decisions no. 520, dated 30.12.2023 and no. 521, dated 27.12.2023, of the Special Court of First Instance for Corruption and Organized Crime; no. 15 (87-2024-23), dated 25.01.2024 of the Special Court of Appeal for Corruption and Organized Crime; no. 00-2024-667 (94), dated 09.04.2024 of the Criminal Chamber of the Supreme Court, as incompatible with the Constitution of the Republic of Albania.
The court, after initially examining the criteria for the applicant's standing, concluded that: he is standing both to challenge the court decisions to replace the personal security measure, and to challenge the procedure followed by the Assembly to grant authorization to impose house arrest on him.
The court assessed that the claims regarding the independence and impartiality of the special courts due to Law No. 95/2016 cannot be considered as they constitute res judicata.
Likewise, claims regarding the principle of legal certainty due to the ambiguity of the criminal procedural provisions related to the time of execution of security measures cannot be considered since the applicant had not exhausted legal remedies.
As regards the merits of the case, taking into consideration the arguments, submissions and objections of the parties, the Court assessed that:
1. Regarding the claim regarding the parliamentary procedure for granting authorization by the Assembly, according to Article 73, paragraph 2, of the Constitution, the Court, by majority vote, found that this claim is unfounded.
2. Regarding the allegations of violation of personal freedom (Article 27 of the Constitution), related to the right to be elected (Article 45 of the Constitution), the Court assessed them in two aspects: in the procedural aspect and the substantive aspect.
A) In terms of procedure, the Court assessed the judicial process in which the replacement of security measures with house arrest was decided in the following areas:
i) the principle of impartiality of the court linked to the right to effective protection;
ii) the right of access linked to the standard of reasoning of the decision.
The Court, by majority vote, assessed that these claims are unfounded.
B) In the substantive aspect, the Court assessed the proportionality of the house arrest measure in terms of necessity, appropriateness and severity.
The court, based on Article 73, point 4, of Law No. 8577, dated 10.02.2000 “On the Organization and Functioning of the Constitutional Court”, as amended, decided to dismiss the request, due to the failure to form the necessary decision-making majority of 5 judges.
In the end, the Court decided to dismiss the request.
The final decision will be announced with reasons within the legal deadlines provided for by Law No. 8577, dated 10.02.2000 “On the Organization and Functioning of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Albania”, as amended by the Regulation on Judicial Procedures of the Constitutional Court.
Lini një Përgjigje