Milan Radoicic resigns from the post of vice president of the Serbian List
3 assassinations in 2 days, Rrumbullaku signs appointments and dismissals for several managers
Berisha: The terrorist act of the Serbian phalanges had a background prepared by Rama and Vucic
It is suspected that she was killed by her husband, this is what Klodiana wrote on social networks
Details from the murder of the 35-year-old Albanian woman in Italy, the author waited for her sitting on a bench
The decision on Xhaçka's mandate, procrastination after procrastination in the Assembly
The Council of Legislation decided on Friday to give 3 weeks to an expert requested by the majority to analyze the decisions of the Constitutional Court, after this court annulled as unconstitutional two decisions of the Assembly to block the sending to this court of the motion for incompatibility of mandate for the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Olta Xhaçka.
The expert called by the Assembly, Krenar Loloçi, a professor of constitutional law, accepted the task from the Assembly and asked for 3 weeks to prepare a report on the two decisions of the Constitutional Court taken in January.
But his commitment was opposed by opposition MPs, who called the decision of the parliamentary majority a mockery of the expert and the Constitutional Court and an aim to protect their colleague from the removal of the MP's mandate.
This is another delay in the process to implement the decisions of the Constitutional Court, after a meeting in March where the SP raised questions about the decisions and in another meeting at the beginning of April asked for the help of experts. But Felaj was justified by the fact that the Assembly was not convened during the month of the election campaign.
Deputy Gazmend Bardhi said that the procrastination was intentional and accused the head of the council, Ermonela Felaj, of not calling the meeting for 2 months.
"The expert is yours, we don't need to read the decisions," he addressed the colleagues of the majority, adding that this path chosen by them was a challenge to the Constitutional Court.
Enkelejd Alibeaj also called this new practice of the Assembly a dangerous precedent, who said that "it is not possible to interpret the decisions of the CJK".
Expert Loloçi said that there was no conflict of interest with the parties involved in the process at the Constitutional Court and that he would do his duty and return the answers according to his opinion to the questions that the deputies would ask him.
The relator of the case from the SP, Klotilda Bushka, asked a dozen questions which were mainly related to the duties that arose for the Assembly from the reading of the two decisions of the Constitutional Court and if it was reasonable that for their implementation, legal amendments or in the regulation would be needed of the Assembly.
"I guarantee you that no one will use your expertise for political reasons," she addressed Loloc.
While Bardhi asked the expert if there had been cases before when the Assembly had questioned the implementation of the decisions of the Constitution.
Divided into two groups, the opposition MPs made two different demands for the removal of Xhaçka's mandate, after her husband, former Socialist MP Artan Gaçi, was declared a strategic investor and by government decision was given the right to use the coasts in The dirt.
After the majority voted against sending the incompatibility of the mandate to the Constitutional Court, both groups addressed separate requests to this court.
The court decided to accept the request of 1/10 of the deputies and returned the case to the Assembly, calling the decisions of the majority unconstitutional.
In the next decision, the CJK dismissed the request of 1/5 of the MPs who wanted to deal with the case on its merits and make a decision on the incompatibility of the mandate, not legitimizing it as a subject that moves the court on this issue.