FLASH
Shkruar nga Pamfleti
On Thursday, the fate of Olta Xhaçka, SP will be decided in the test against the decision of the Constitutional Court...
Will Edi Rama release Olta Xhaçka? After holding the issue of her mandate hostage for over a year and a half, SP seems to have decided to make a final decision. Today the Council of Mandates met and it was decided that on Thursday the report related to her mandate will be voted on.
We remind you that the Constitutional Court, with a decision of its own, asked the Assembly to vote in favor of the removal of the mandate and to pass the report to this court. In the end, she must decide whether or not we are in conflict of interest conditions.
The opposition MPs Gazment Bardhi and Ervin Salianji accused the majority of having become the shield of Olta Xhaçka and requested that the issue not be delayed but be put on the agenda in the next session. Nikola decided that the vote will be held on Tuesday, while Bardhi stated that the SP has not made a decision on how to vote, but left it in the hands of the deputies. He gave signals that he may vote against the removal of the mandate.
Decision of the Constitutional Court
The majority of the members of the Constitutional Court granted the right to the request of 1/10 of the opposition MPs, overturning as unconstitutional the decisions of the Assembly on the two reports of the Council of Mandates regarding Xhaçka's mandate.
In November 2022, the Assembly decided not to approve the parliamentary minority's report and to approve the majority's report on the Xhaçka case.
" The Assembly should have accepted the petitioner's motion and sent the case for consideration to this Court, so that the aspects claimed as incompatibility of the mandate of deputy Olta Xhaçka were subject to constitutional evaluation, since no legal obstacles were verified during the constitutional trial - formal for the motion to be obstructed by the Assembly ", says the majority decision.
The opinion of the minority against in the decision was represented by members Sonila Bejtja, Sandër Beci and Ilir Toska. According to Bejtje's reasoning, the request of 1/10 of the deputies had to be rejected, as it deprives the court of the opportunity to evaluate the case on the basis of the request of 1/5 of the deputies. Bejtja further argues that this mechanism is the only way to set constitutional jurisdiction in motion, in case the Assembly does not act in accordance with the constitutional obligation.
While the two members Sandër Beci and Ilir Toska opposed the decision to resolve the conflict of powers between 1/10 of the deputies and the Assembly, since according to them 1/10 of the deputies is not legitimate for starting a constitutional trial on this issue.
Violations of SP
If the SP does not vote in favor, it has openly violated the Constitution and the Rules of the Assembly. The demand of the democrats is based on Article 70 of the Constitution, which states: " Deputies cannot perform any profitable activity that originates from the property of the state or local government, nor can they acquire property of these." For any violation of paragraph 3 of this article, with the motion of the President of the Assembly or one tenth of its members, the Assembly decides to send the case to the Constitutional Court, which determines the incompatibility ".
Whereas in Article 119/1 of the Regulation of the Assembly, the steps to be followed by the Assembly after submitting the request are defined. According to this article, the Assembly does not discuss the presented motion and does not subject it to the parliamentary debate, as it does not go into the essence of the case to assess whether the alleged concrete actions performed by the deputy are incompatible with his mandate.
" For any violation of the restrictions of this article, the case is sent without delay to the Constitutional Court. The Assembly, through the Council for Regulation, Mandates and Immunities, verifies whether the presented motion meets the legal-formal requirements, such as the number of signatory members, the existence of documentation and evidence that support the presented motion, verifies the moment of receiving the mandate from the deputy, verifies if the motion fulfills the constitutional criteria provided for in point 3 of Article 70 of the Constitution for setting the Constitutional Court in motion, as well as taking care of the observance of the parliamentary procedure for voting on the motion in the plenary session, in accordance with the provisions of its Regulation , it is stated in the article. According to him, assessing whether or not we have a conflict of interest is a matter that belongs exclusively to the Constitutional Court.
The most scandalous case is that the SP gives itself powers to go over the Constitutional Court. SP has openly violated Article 132 of the Constitution, which states: " Decisions of the Constitutional Court are final and binding for implementation ". / Pamphlet
Lini një Përgjigje