FLASH
Shkruar nga Pamfleti
The Constitutional Court will review next week the Government's appeal regarding a decision by the Constitutional Court, which has decided to suspend Belinda Balluku from government duties.
The government considers the GJKKO decision to be unconstitutional, interpreting the case as an interference by one power against another.
The issue that the Constitutional Court will consider concerns whether or not ministers have the same protection as MPs. The government, in its arguments regarding sending the case to the Constitutional Court, has used the definition of Article 103, paragraph 3, which states that members of the Council of Ministers enjoy the immunity of MPs.
The Democratic Party leader, Sali Berisha, has also reacted to the issue. The latter states that the term immunity is used several times in the Constitution in the context of the protection enjoyed by various constitutional institutions such as the Ombudsman, judges, etc., although the Constitution does not have a unique definition for each case.
"In the case of a deputy, the protection is limited to the opinions expressed in the Assembly. So, it has to do with the fundamental human rights. Of the deputy.
So, the protection is limited to the opinions expressed in the Assembly, the votes cast, the exercise of the function in parliamentary collegiality, so all of these are protected by parliamentary immunity.
This protection is specifically translated by the Constitution as a guarantee against deprivation of liberty of any form, search of the home without authorization from parliament.
For judges of the Constitutional Court, immunity is limited to protection for opinions expressed and decisions rendered, provided that these are not given for personal interest or in bad faith.
Likewise, for the judges of the Supreme Court, Article 137, the President of the Supreme Audit Institution, Article 65, the Ombudsman, Article 61/3, in all these cases, the protection provided by the Constitution is specific.
So it defines the areas where protection extends.
In the case of the deputy, the protection includes two categories. Deprivation of liberty in any form without authorization from the Assembly. Search of the residence without authorization from the Assembly.
Whereas the function of the minister is not a fundamental human right. Protection is considered complete if these two categories are respected. So freedom in any way and control of the home.
But the exercise of an executive duty is not part of the normal function of a deputy as an elected official, and consequently, protection from suspension from office is not included in the constitutional guarantees.
For this reason, Article 103/3 gives the minister the constitutional protection of Article 73 of the Constitution and not guarantees that derive from the Criminal Procedure Code and that are related to their eligibility as representatives of the people.
Article 245 of the Criminal Procedure Code, and primarily applicable to the executive, public officials, this too cannot be good for second-rate officials or high-ranking officials, but not for ministers, otherwise we would be called George Orwell's pig farm where pigs are equal, but some are more equal.
As a reminder, I myself have argued that the obligation to report and the removal of the right to travel abroad are restrictions on freedom.
So, both obtaining a passport and the obligation to appear are restrictions on freedom.
And when I protested, when I opposed them, the Constitutional Court, the government, the parliament defended that it was a fair measure that stems from the criminal procedure code and that the deputy is not protected.
At that time I told them, you will grab their head with your hand, but let them grab it, pull out their head, nose and ears because they deserve it.
As for me, I recall here that in 2012 I sent to parliament the law that removed any kind of protection for MPs.
Therefore, if I made the appeal, I did so in respect of the Constitution and absolutely no personal problem of Sali Berisha.
Suspension does not interfere with any right.
It has nothing to do with immunity, it has to do with thieves trying to protect themselves at all costs like drowning people trying to cling to a blade of grass.
"In fact, in my case the court decided differently, but it ruled in violation of the European Convention on Human Rights and the judgments of the Strasbourg Court," Berisha said.
Lini një Përgjigje