Review of the President’s request for the resignation of judges from the case, the Constitution withdraws for decision

The defense of the Presidency thinks that this Court can not adjudicate the case, as it is appointed by the Government and the mandate of its chairwoman, Vitore Tusha, ended five years ago and is expected to be replaced.

For this reason, Meta’s defense sees the issue as biased. In his opinion, of the seven members that the Constitution currently has, six of them are Government appointments. Three of these appointments have even come with the intervention of the Venice Commission.

The latter himself, according to Meta’s defense, has stated several times that the situation is unfavorable for judges to be elected for the Constitutional Court, as their impartiality is endangered.

Another reason mentioned is the deviation from the regulation. This, because according to the claim, the rapporteur of the case was not chosen by lot, but was already elected.

In these circumstances, there is a conflict of interest over the selection, as it occurred in favor of one party.

The legal representative of the President, submitted the request for some members of the Court, the rapporteur of the case and mainly for the president of the court. In their request, the members of the Constitutional Court were asked to assess whether or not they are in front of cases where they should withdraw from the examination of the case.

According to them, some of the members of this Court have discovered some causes that make them incompatible and in conflict of interest.

“The President of the Constitutional Court has entered the 5th year with a completed mandate. While the other two members have declared the end of their term. “The president has been openly denouncing the seizure of justice for years, but today he has the right to be tried by an independent and impartial court.” tha Dervishaj.

In these circumstances, the Constitutional Court withdrew to consider the President’s request for the judges to resign from the case.

Dervishaj: The President has submitted a request to the Constitutional Court, for some members of the Court, the rapporteur of the case and mainly for the president of the court.

We ask the members of the Constitutional Court to assess whether or not they are in front of cases that should give up the examination of the case. For some of the members we only discovered yesterday some causes that make them incompatible and in conflict of interest. The President of the Constitutional Court has entered her 5th year with a completed mandate. While the other two members have declared the end of their term. The president has for years openly denounced the seizure of justice, but today he has the right to be tried by an independent and impartial court.

We have presented facts, some judges should resign. The current chairwoman is serving her term in the fifth year, beyond the mandate. We all know the reasons because even today the Supreme Court does not have the necessary quorum to decide on the appointment of Constitutional members. The president has been denouncing illegal activity for years. The presiding judge has consumed more than half of the new judge’s term. Remaining in office until the appointment of a successor can not continue as he is consuming more than half of the term of the new judge. Staying in office beyond the 5-year term creates a situation that significantly affects the impartiality of the judge.

Three other members of the Constitutional Court were elected in November 2019, elected in the 9th legislature. Fiona Papajorgji, Elsa Toska and Marsida Xheferllari. Existence of a request for disciplinary proceedings for a member of the Constitutional Court because several procedural violations of the constitutional judge have been observed. Has consumed ethical and professional violations that have influenced the decision.

Disciplinary proceedings may involve other members, most notably the chairperson who has the duty to elect her by lot. Përparim Kalos ends his term on 08.04.2021 and this fact definitely constitutes a reason for the impartiality of the judge. The court violated the 3-month deadline for passing or not passing the case for the plenary session. This violation was consumed because the judges wanted to leave with annual leave.

In June last year, 104 deputies voted in favor of ousting President Meta. The Socialist majority blames him for public statements before and during the parliamentary election campaign, which according to the Socialists have violated the Constitution.

The vote was based on the findings of a report drafted by an investigative commission set up to investigate President Meta’s stance before and during the 2021 parliamentary election campaign.

Meta has considered illegal the decision to dismiss him. But through a post on his Facebook page this morning, the head of state announced that his lawyers will appear at the session of the Constitutional Court where the request of the parliament is expected to be considered.

top channel