[ad_1]
\n<\/p>\n
Ferhati<\/strong>: The reason why we are meeting has to do with examining the criterion of whether the deputy has a profitable activity or uses public property. In your facts, it does not result that the MP uses public assets. This council meets when there is incompatibility of such a nature that when it goes to the Constitutional Court it has jurisdiction<\/em><\/p>\n Tell me where Olta Xha\u00e7ka has state assets and where she benefits from these assets. You have found a reason that serves your political interests, and you are misusing it. The MP himself must have use or benefit from the state’s wealth. YOU have made this forced request, you know the reasons. There is a decision of the Constitutional Court that confirms what I am telling you, you abused the request and you know it very well. We stick strictly to the debates and the constitution. This council does not belong to lengthy debates. I ask you for documents and clear things, you make up fictions and do not return answers.<\/em><\/p>\n White<\/strong>: She said that a man’s property is not a woman’s. It is the duty of the deputy to take measures to implement the constitution and the law. The fact that the beneficiary of the property is the husband of Olta Xha\u00e7ka is already known. They have the assets together. Whether it is called or not is the competence of the Constitutional Court, which says that if the Assembly is moved by 1\/10 of the members, it must decide to send the case to the Constitutional Court. Conversely, if the motion of 1\/10 is subject to discussion in Parliament, the constitutional provision would be inapplicable. <\/em><\/p>\n All MPs should apply for the status of strategic investor, why should only Olta get it?<\/em><\/p>\n \n<\/p>\n top channel
\n<\/strong>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n