FLASH
Shkruar nga Pamfleti
Natasha Mulaj, Ina Rama, Sokol Çomo, Mimoza Tasi and Albana Shtylla were appointed as Appeal judges, while only unreasoned decisions were published on the official website of the Supreme Court of Kosovo. Lawyers raise serious questions about the validity of the procedure...
Five members of the Special Appeals Chamber, the institution that for years decided the fate of judges and prosecutors in the Vetting process, have been appointed judges of the Court of Appeal of General Jurisdiction.
We are talking about Natasha Mulaj, Ina Rama, Sokol Çomo, Mimoza Tasi and Albana Shtylla.
Up to this point, the procedure may have seemed normal. But the problem begins precisely in the way the appointment was made.
Only the press release and the relevant decisions have been published on the official website of the High Judicial Council. According to the published documents, these decisions do not contain the reasoning on which the decision-making was based.
This raises a fundamental question.
Can an administrative act that is not justified produce legal consequences?
According to the principles of administrative law, the justification is not a formality. It is an integral part of the administrative act. It is precisely the justification that gives the parties the opportunity to understand on what basis the decision was made and to exercise the right to appeal.
In normal administrative practice, a reasoned, signed and sealed decision is notified to the parties, who have a legal deadline to challenge it. Only after this deadline expires or after the appeal is considered, does the decision enter into force and be executed.
In this case, according to critics of the procedure, the opposite happened.
The legal consequences were immediate. The five members of the KPA were appointed as Appeals judges, while the reasoned decisions are missing.
This raises another question.
If the justification is drafted after the appointment, are we still dealing with the same administrative act, or with an attempt to justify a decision-making that has already produced its effects?
The debate becomes even stronger due to the role that these five judges have had in the Vetting process.
They were part of the institution that reviewed appeals and sealed the professional fate of dozens of judges and prosecutors. Now they have returned to the system themselves, this time as Appeals judges.
This is precisely what has fueled the perception that we are dealing with an institutional "slap" against people who for years were at the center of justice reform.
If these allegations prove to be well-founded, then the problem is not just related to five names. The problem is related to the very standard that the Supreme Court of Justice requires of all judges, but which it must apply first and foremost to itself.
Because justice reform was built on a fundamental promise: no one is above the law.
If this standard is not respected by the very institutions that administer the system, then the question is no longer just legal.
It is a question of the credibility of the entire reform./ Pamphlet
Po ato personazhe jane prej 35 vitesh, nuk ka ndryshime..dhe nuk ka reformim. Teater kudo...suksese..
Kush do ti arsyetoje vendimet Ilir Rusi qe gjate gjithe karrieres se tij nese do quhet e tille ka mbajtue cantat e Kudret Celes dhe Skender Kacupit, Emona Muci qe megjithe ato zeza profesionale dhe morale, qe ka bere kaloi vetingun lehte fare, apo Irena Plaku nje idiote e lindur, nje inferiore nga Pajova e Peqinit, apo Ridvan Hado nje gjytyrym ne prag pensioni, apo Genta Muca e cila ne gjykimet e saj gjithmone shteti ka te drejte dhe kur i shkelen te drejtat shtetasve me te dyja kembet etj etj?
sakte!
Aitokratët kanë në dorë jo vetëm 4 pushtetet por tentojnë infinitet pushtetet. Si puna e Elon Muskut që nuk I mjafton trilioni
Duhet te behet nje reforme e re ne drejtesi. Kjo palo-reforme qe beri Rama me Berishen, eshte thjesht nje pazar