Flash News

Gunfire in Durres, a 30-year-old man is injured

Accident on Arbri Street, car goes off the road, two injured

Arrests of "Bankers Petrolium", Prosecution provides details: Exported and sold 532 billion lek of oil, caused millions of euros in damage to the state

Ndahet nga jeta tragjikisht në moshën 28-vjeçare ylli i Liverpool, Diogo Jota

Posta e mëngjesit/ Me 2 rreshta: Çfarë pati rëndësi dje në Shqipëri

Ditari i Maxhorancës

Xhačka's mandate in 'Venecia', SP deputy: The decision of the Constitutional Court, unclear

Politiko 2024-09-16 20:03:27

Xhačka's mandate in 'Venecia', SP deputy: The decision of the

SP MP Blerina Gjylameti says that by sending the case of former minister Olta Xhaçka to the Venice Commission, the decision of the Constitutional Court was not opposed.

In an interview on ABC News, she said that the Speaker of the Assembly turned to 'Venice' to clarify the ambiguities of powers between the constitutional bodies.

"At no time was the decision of the Supreme Court questioned. As long as the decision gave a lot of ambiguity and there were conflicts with the previous decisions of the CJK for similar cases, it created a situation of ambiguity and was precisely the reason why the Speaker of the Assembly turned to the Venice Commission to clarify the ambiguities between the constitutional bodies and by clarified this, then, not in the case of Mrs. Xhaçka, this is for the part of the powers that each of the constitutional bodies has, to have clarity also regarding other decisions.

There have also been genuine analyzes by constitutional experts for the specific case, for the first or second decision of the GJK to understand, and precisely from the first question arises all that we want to clarify.

The first question with which the president of the assembly addressed Venice is 'Can the GJK force the deputies to vote in a certain way and if so, what are the cases.'

This is one way of clarifying the relevant position. There has never been such a decision that does not clarify exactly who the position should be, and in this particular case we turn to it not to oppose the decision of the CJK. If there had been a group decision to be against the Constitutional Court, so it was abstention, we would understand that there was a decision against the CJK or that they overturned its decision.

The abstention shows that the way is opened for a second moment which was exactly the clarity between the competences of the institutions of the constitutional bodies. The constitution states that the deputy enjoys the freedom to decide. Through this decision, the freedom of the deputy was discussed, there are bodies of the assembly that draft or analyze decisions regarding conflicts of interest. Constitutional experts have been called to the commission of mandates to clarify who these are." , said the deputy.

Latest news