E fundit!

18:23 TODAY

The 10th protest against the government begins

The 10th day of the protest against the government and Pri...

By Sali Berisha/ Decision of the Constitutional Court, a colpo di grazia for order

2023-12-22 10:31:00, Politikë CNA

By Sali Berisha/ Decision of the Constitutional Court, a colpo di grazia for

Former Prime Minister Sali Berisha

The Constitutional Court in its decision of 20. 12. 2023 to justify the rejection of the request of 1/5 of the deputies to review the taking by political order from the prosecution and the courts of the competences of the Assembly derived from article 73 point 2 of the constitution in the case of the establishment of security measures without the approval of the assembly against the chairman of the DP, Deputy Sali Berisha, he writes that "The Constitution has well defined the cases when groups of deputies have been recognized as entities and in this regard, 1/5 of the deputies and The Assembly are different constitutional subjects, which cannot be equated with each other".

This claim is a shameful and unprecedented fiction, since according to Article 131 of the Constitution, which defines the entities that set the Constitutional Court in motion, the Assembly and its governing bodies are not entities that set the Constitutional Court in motion. This is an invention, a primitive and shameful fiction. Real attacks on the Constitution.

With this unimaginable scandal that the Constitutional Court made yesterday by political order, it has defiled the Constitution, today's jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court, and even the Court itself and its organic law. It has transformed from a defender of the constitution into a miserable section of Edi Rama's Renaissance.

To better understand this superscandal of individuals without law and professional morals, we must refer to the articles of the constitution that deal with this issue.

First it is necessary to get acquainted with,

Article 7 of the Constitution which sanctions that:

"The governance system in the Republic of Albania is based on the division and balance between the legislative, executive and judicial powers."

So this article talks about legislative, executive and judicial power.

As you can see, the article does not talk about the power of the Assembly, of its governing bodies, but only legislative power.

Now let's see who has the constitutional right to set the Constitutional Court in motion, that is, to present complaints to this court for examination, the Assembly or 1/5 of the deputies.

According to Article 134, (Amended by Law No. 76/2016, dated 22.7.2016),

1. The Constitutional Court is set in motion at the request of:

a) the President of the Republic;

b) the Prime Minister;

c) not less than one fifth of the deputies;

ç) People's Advocate;

d) Chairman of the Supreme State Audit Office;

dh) any court, according to Article 145, point 2, of this Constitution;

e) every commissioner established by law for the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution;

ë) The High Judicial Council and the High Prosecution Council;

f) local government bodies;

g) bodies of religious communities;

gj) political parties;

h) organizations;

i) individuals.

2. Subjects provided by subsections "d", "dh", "e", "ë", "f", "g", "gj", "h" and

"i", of paragraph 1, of this article, can make a request only for issues related to their interests.

From the reading of this article it appears that the constitution in paragraph 1 point "c" has given this right to no less than 1/5 of the deputies and in no point or letter of it in over 100 words of this article the word assembly does not exist. So clearly the Constitution has not given this right to the Assembly of Albania, which consists of the deputies, the governing bodies and its staff. The Constitution has not recognized the right to set in motion any of its governing bodies as such, ie the presidency, bureau, commissions or the leadership of parliamentary groups, although it recognizes these bodies as constitutional bodies. It does not give this right to the Chairperson/President of the assembly, although in the state hierarchy he or she is the number two of the state and certainly could never forget it. The president of the assembly has this right, but only as a legislator and only if he or she signs as equals together with 1/5 of the deputies of the assembly. To better understand this exception that the constitution makes to the assembly in the sense of its governing bodies, let's refer again to Article 134, which says in point dh: "this right is recognized by every court, according to Article 134 point 2, of of this Constitution". If we go back to Article 7 of the Constitution, it talks about legislative and judicial power, while in Article 134, point c, it does not talk about the assembly, but about 1/5 of the deputies (legislators), while point 'dh' of this article talks about the court as an institution. and not for judicial power.

The Constitution recognizing the right of 1/5 of the deputies has first of all respected a universal principle that of respecting the right of the minority, of course not every minority but that which groups at least 1/5 of the deputies. This, of course, does not exclude that these could be even more, or even all the deputies.

Denying with its decision the unconditional, constitutional right of the minority and transferring this de facto right to the Assembly, the Constitutional Court has overturned the Constitution, democratic parliamentary pluralism, thus committing a serious act of coup against the constitutional order and has turned into a tool for establishing the monist regime of Edi Rama in Albania.

In addition, the Constitutional Court, in implementation of the political order, seriously violates the Constitution, deceives in complete legal immorality when it presents 1/5 of the deputies as a subject with a conditional right to submit requests to it. With this scandalous assertion, she clearly goes against Article 134 of the Constitution and in her decision says the opposite of what the Constitution sanctions in Article 134. This Article has not left it to the Court to determine which are the subjects that can set the Court in motion with conditional right, meaning that they can set it in motion for the interests of their activities, and which subjects have unconditional rights, that is, they have no restrictions related to the interests of their activity, but they can set them in motion for issues of social importance that they themselves estimate should be presented to the Constitutional Court. To distinguish between these subjects, the Constitution in paragraph 2 of Article 134 stipulates that:

"Subjects provided by subsections "d", "dh", "e", "ë", "f", "g", "gj", "h" and "i", of paragraph 1, of this article, they can only apply for matters related to their interests. As for other entities such as the President of the Republic, the Prime Minister, 1/5 of the group of deputies and the People's Advocate, the Constitution excludes from the conditioning of the constitutional right to submit a request to the Constitutional Court 'only for issues related to their interests. These entities have an unconditional constitutional right to take you to court. Thus, with their decision, the judges of the Constitutional Court kicked not only the constitution, but also the entire jurisprudence of this court, themselves, but also their decision that they accepted two weeks ago in accordance with Article 134/1c the request of the group of 1/5 of the deputies for the protocol between the Albanian government and the Italian government on immigration. This standard used in yesterday's decision cannot be called any other than fraud, legal insolence with dramatic consequences for the country.

But now let's dwell on the other coup act of the decision of the Constitutional Court, which states: "Consequently, the petitioner, the group of deputies, is not legitimate to turn to the Constitutional Court, since referring to the alleged disagreement of powers, he is not subject in conflict. So it does not result that any competence was taken from him, or that any competence was directly violated. The group of 1/5 of deputies, despite the fact that it is part of the legislative activity of the Assembly, does not mean that it is the constitutional subject referred to in article 73, point 2 of the Constitution. Therefore, he cannot act in the name and with the authority of the assembly.

The truth is quite different.

But who sets the court in motion for this conflict between powers. According to the constitution article 134/ç this right is recognized by the constitution to 1/5 of the deputies and not the assembly or its leaders. According to this decision, since the Court removes the right of 1/5 of the deputies to complain to the Constitutional Court and according to the Constitution itself, the Assembly does not have this right to complain to the Constitutional Court, it turns out that the legislative power, that is, the constitutional rights of the deputies can anyone can take them and no one can complain.

According to article 131 of the constitution, point ç, the Constitutional Court decides on: competence disputes between powers, as well as between the central government and local government;

The same is confirmed in the organic law of the Constitutional Court. Thus, in Article 54 of this law it is stated that: "In support of Article 131 point ç of the Constitution, the Constitutional Court examines the disputes of competence between powers, as well as between the central government and the local government and when the disagreement has a right-to-right relationship with the exercise of their activity"

What the court writes that these competences have been infringed on the assembly and not the deputies, this is a logical and legal violence. The Special Prosecutor's Office and the Court violated the constitutional powers of the MPs to express themselves and exercise their power according to the procedure established by the law for granting the authorization to remove the MP's immunity. In this line, the monist commission of mandates for political motives decided to legitimize an illegal politically motivated decision of the court and the special prosecutor's office. Moreover, this commission did not examine any evidence, facts or documents, since the prosecutors presented to the commission only the decision of the Court and the prosecution a document of 6-7 pages, while in every other case before this case hundreds and even thousands of pages were presented.

In conclusion, we can say that with its last political decision, the Constitutional Court gave a colpo di gracia to the country's Constitutional Order and approved the establishment of Edi Rama's complete monism in Albania. It closed the year 2023 as a legal section of the Socialist Party and proved conclusively that the reform in justice transformed this system into a branch of Edi Rama's executive.