Berisha's clarification: The Voice of America's investigation into the 'Partizani' complex has two inaccuracies

Chief Democrat Sali Berisha has welcomed the Voice of America's investigation into the 'Partizani' complex, but emphasizes that he has noticed two inaccuracies.

Berisha : I read the Voice of America article with interest and I congratulate the author for trying to make a balanced analysis.

But there are two inaccuracies, I don't believe they are intentional.

The first inaccuracy. It is true what the journalist says that the decision of the Constitutional Court, which states categorically that no decision by the National Council of Territorial Regulation can be changed, was taken a month ago.

But Sali Berisha is a man of the law. When I intervened in the Black Bird, I decreed the normative act. I used the constitutional competence of the government for normative acts that I had no right to intervene. And I authorized the government to intervene.

The prefect who is in the relevant territory had the right to convene the Regulation Council and cancel decisions. This is the truth.

This decree was declared invalid, not annulled. But it was the same for me. I had no legal basis for me personally to intervene in the municipality.

For me to make a decree for the second time, it was an obstacle, an institutional collision that I should not undertake. Even more so when the president of the Congress of Regional and Local Authorities of Europe came here and he stood by Edi Rama's side.

So the moment I declare that I didn't have, I no longer had the law that allowed me to act because the court had canceled it ten days before.

Second, there is a second moment in changing the sports law. Laws have their own hierarchy and in matters of ownership, the basic law of restitution and compensation of property prevails.

Now you have here the property restitution and compensation law of 2004. In Article 7, it is non-returnable property and all types of non-returnable public and state property are listed here.

But article 2 states that in case the immovable properties included in point 1 of this article are proposed to be alienated, i.e. to change owners, they pass to the expropriated entities.

It is this article that gives each owner, each property which is placed in the process of alienation, either concession or privatization of any other type.

No law can prevail over this law.

The truth is that it is this law of 2004 that has served as the basis for my government.

Let's take the law of the sport, suppose the law of the sport did not mention the owner at all. It is enough that he mentioned the concession and the concession was alienation and this automatically passed to the dispossessed.

The sports law, that clause I put in in 2008, was on the condition that the destination is preserved.

The journalist of the Voice of America quotes Erion Braçe, although I say that that law was unanimously approved by all the commissions, because a year ago some privatization was removed for unknown reasons, and in the parliamentary commission that law was unanimously approved.

But Erion Braçe, who makes the objection, if you read carefully, closes the first sentence of the law with a period. The first sentence of the law is not closed with a period, it is separated by a comma and this is the essential difference.

If he wanted to single out the owner, the legislator would say: for this last case, that is, for the concession, provided that the destination does not change.

But this has been said about both.

As a whole, that article had done a thorough investigation, except that it escaped this moment.