LEXO PA REKLAMA!

SHKARKO APP

KPA, 7 orë pyetje/Kunata e Mirel Mërtirit kërkon të qëndrojë prokurore

2024-01-17 19:22:00, Vetingu CNA

KPA, 7 orë pyetje/Kunata e Mirel Mërtirit kërkon të

Për më shumë se 7 orë, Kolegji i Posaçëm i Apelimit ka marrë dje në pyetje kunatës së Mirel Mërtirit, Mariola Mërtiri, e cila është prokurore pranë Prokurorisë së Rrethit Tiranë.

Mariola Mërtiri kërkoi të qëndrojë prokurore dhe kundërshtoi shkaqet dhe kërkimin e Komisioneres Publike, Irena Nino.

Për rreth dy orë, prokurorja i dha llogari vëzhguesit ndërkombëtar, Seven Kessler, për lidhjet e mundshme me kunatin dhe të akuzuarit e tjerë për aferat e incineratorëve.

Duhet theksuar këtu se Mirel Mërtiri dhe bashkëjetuesja e tij Stela Gugallja janë dënuar për aferën në inceneratorët e Elbasanit dhe Fierit, ndërkohë që janë nënë hetim për rastin e Tiranës.

Ata janë arratisur dhe kanë kërkuar azil politik në Vjenë, ndërkohë që janë në kërkim nga autoritetet shqiptare.

Por kunata e “trurit” të inceneratorëve, pretendoi se lidhjet e saj me Mërtirin janë keqinterpretuar për një çështje që sipas saj nuk ka të bëjë me procesin e vetingut dhe që po hetohen nga një institucion i specializuar.

KPA, 7 orë pyetje/Kunata e Mirel Mërtirit kërkon të

Shkaqet për pasurinë

Si burime për blerjen e një apartamenti me sipërfaqe 83.88 m2 në Fier kundrejt çmimit 4.5 milionë lekë, pasuri e porositur në vitin 2011, subjekti ka deklaruar 1 milion lekë dhuruar nga vëllai i bashkëshortit, Mirel Mërtiri; 1 milion e 260 mijë lekë të dhuruara nga vjehrri dhe 2 milion e 240 mijë lekë me një kredi të butë të përfituar për strehim me vendim të Këshillit të Bashkisë Fier.

Komisionerja Nino u shpreh se e gjen jo bindës arsyetimin e Komisionit, se subjekti duhet të justifikojë burimin e ligjshëm brenda kufijve të shumës objekt dhurimi. Sipas Komisioneres, vlerësimi i KPK nuk duket shterues, pasi kanë rezultuar fakte se kunati ka investuar në aktivitet privat shuma të konsiderueshme dhe se të ardhurat e krijuara janë deklaruar si një nga burimet e shumës 1 milion lekë që i është dhuruar. Sipas Ninos, në analizë duhen përfshirë edhe shpenzimet të cilat kanë shërbyer për krijimin e biznesit nga i cili janë gjeneruar të ardhurat për vlerën e dhuruar me argumentin se paraqesin lidhje organike dhe logjike.

Ngjashëm, Nino kërkon që të përfshihet në analizë edhe investimi i kryer nga kunati në vitin 2004 në një shoqëri, pasi si një nga burimet e dhurimit janë deklaruar të ardhurat nga punësimi në atë subjekt.

Bazuar në këtë analizë, Komisionerja Publike vlerëson se prokurorja Mërtiri nuk arriti të vërtetojë se Mirel Mërtiri ka pasur burime financiare të ligjshme për krijimin e shumave të dhuruara.

Nino vlerëson se nuk është arritur të vërtetohet as mundësia e vjehrrit për dhurimin e shumës 1 milion e 260 mijë lekë. Sipas Komisioneres, në analizën financiare të vjehrrrit duhet përfshirë një shumë 4 milionë lekë që ai i ka dhënë bashkëshortit të subjektit për të investuar në një shoqëri, ndërkohë që nuk duhen konsideruar të ardhurat nga dhënia me qira e një automjeti të llojit autobus, si dhe nga shitja e kësaj pasurie, pasi nuk janë provuar burimet e krijimit të tyre, të ardhurat nga emigracioni, raporton Birn.

Prokurorja Mërtiri deklaroi në seancë se shkaqet e nrgitura nga Komisionerja nuk qëndrojnë dhe se bien në kundërshtim me ligjin dhe parimet e objektivitetit e propocionalitetit. “Shkelin haptazi prezumimin e pafajësisë,” theksoi ajo.

Mërtiri këmbënguli se kishte dorëzuar prova që vërtetonin burimet e ligjshme të dhuruesve për krijimin e shumave. Sipas saj, vetëm të ardhurat nga pagat e personave të tjerë të lidhur përmbushin mundësinë e tyre për dhurimet e kryera.

Subjekti pohoi se Nino e konsideronte rastin e saj si specifik, por pa e shpjeguar përse. Ajo vërejti se në kohën kur janë krijuar shoqëritë dhe kur janë kryer këtë transaksione prej kunatit dhe vjehrrit, ajo nuk njihej ende me bashkëshortit dhe nuk kishte filluar të ushtronte detyrën e prokurores.

Ajo solli në vëmendje se kunati dhe vjehrri janë persona të tjerë të lidhur dhe nuk mund të shtrihet analiza financiare në gjithë veprimtarinë e tyre ekonomike. Subjekti pretendoi se verifikimi i pasurive të dhuruesve shumë kohë para se të kryhej dhurimi, binte në kundërshtim me legjislacionin.

Po ashtu, u parashtrua se ka qenë e pamundur që të sigurohen të dhëna për të ardhurat nga puna e vjehrrit në Greqi gjatë viteve 1992-1998, kohë në të cilën subjekti kishte qenë e mitur.

Nino trajtoi edhe mënyrën e përfitimit të kredisë së butë nga ana e subjektit. Sipas Komisioneres, ky shkak ankimi vlerësohet i ndërlidhur edhe me etikën e magjistratit dhe përbën bazë për një vlerësim tërësor të çështjes.

Sipas Ninos, subjekti ka përfituar në vitin 2010 një kredi me kushte lehtësuese me vendim të Këshillit të Bashkisë Fier, në një kohë kur ka qenë duke ushtruar funksionin e prokurores në atë qytet.

Shumica e KPK ka vlerësuar se përzgjedhja e familjeve përfituese bëhet nëpërmjet një sistemi pikëzimi, ndërsa shitja më vonë e kësaj banese të paguar pjesërisht me kredi të butë të përfituar si e pastrehë, nuk është gjetur problem.

Nino u shpreh se përfundimi i KPK nuk është rrjedhojë e një vlerësimi tërësor të fakteve dhe  interpretimit të drejtë të ligjit të posaçëm. Komisonerja vlerëson se kushtet ligjore nuk plotësohen nga ana e subjektit, pasi të ardhurat e familjes së saj kanë qenë më të larta se baza e vendosur nga Këshilli Bashkiak për raste të ngjashme.

Next, Nino found that Mërtiri failed to prove the alleged losses from an investment of the husband. She added that the subject has sold this apartment benefited from social programs, although it continues to pay the soft loan - considering this legal action contrary to the law "On social programs for housing residents of urban areas", as amended.

KPA, 7 orë pyetje/Kunata e Mirel Mërtirit kërkon të

The Public Commissioner estimates that Mërtiri was a beneficiary outside the legal criteria of the soft loan. "It seems that this benefit is the result of the function that the subject exercised in conflict with the fulfillment of the standards of professional ethics", asserted Nino and added that this situation is also evaluated in relation to the criminal proceedings that the subject has handled against the Municipality of Fier, the apparently preferential price and the sale of this asset in violation of the law. According to Nino, in the overall assessment of the case, it seems that the subject has violated public trust.

For these reasons, the legal representative of Mërtir, lawyer Romina Zano, submitted objections. She emphasized that there was no exclusionary category for the benefit of the loan and added that the conditions had to be met as a homeless person, who was a young family, both members together up to the age of 60. According to Zano, the economic situation was assessed on the basis of income. She explained that the subject's husband had been unemployed during 2011 and therefore their income had decreased. Likewise, the husband did not have the income previously invested. Zano insisted that Mërtiri had met the required legal criteria and described the Public Commissioner as biased.

Regarding the apparently preferential price, Zano stated that the Commissioner had not presented any argument as to why it was lower than the market value. According to her, it was almost the same as the market value reference.

In the following, for the investigation of some issues for the municipality, it was argued that the decision on the loan was taken by the Municipal Council and that in this collegial institution, only the mayor who represents one vote was part of the municipality.

Regarding the claim raised for the sale of the apartment, Zano observed that the prohibition of such a transaction for a period of time was for those who benefited from social housing. According to her, Mërtiri bought the apartment at market cost.

Regarding Nino's finding regarding the non-reflection in the "veting" declaration of the husband's shares in a company, Zano observed that the subject made this declaration in 2006 and 2007. According to her, based on the fact that since 2007 this company had not generated activity and because it was considered a failure, they had not declared it. "The subject estimated that it could not be considered as an asset and did not declare it in the 'veting' declaration", asserted Zano.

Nino estimates that the subject made an incorrect statement about the sources of a vehicle purchased by the spouse before the marriage.

The subject claimed that the vehicle was purchased before the start of the duty and that this vehicle was deregistered before the marriage. This claim of the Public Commissioner was described by Mertiri as incorrect.

Connections with Martyr

According to Commissioner Nino, the witness failed to prove the opposite of the burden of proof regarding the failure to declare an inappropriate contact between her and her husband in April 2012, when they signed the contract for the apartment, signed and by a person prosecuted in Italy for organized crime.

The witness clarified that the husband negotiated the terms of the contract with another person in 2011, when the order was made for the purchase of the apartment in the future. According to her, the citizen involved in organized crime signed the contract in 2012 at the notary before her husband left. She insisted that not only she, but also her husband had not had any casual or direct meeting with the person in question. According to the subject, there was no information about the conviction of citizen GZ in Italy, while articles were written in the media years later.

According to Mërtir, the Commissioner has not clarified who the inappropriate contact is and that her claims contradict the transitional reassessment process.

But Nino does not find the subject's explanations based on the evidence administered. It brings to attention a request of the subject to waive the investigation of a proceeding of the citizen in question. According to Nino, it turns out that the subject had full knowledge, both of the fact of legal problems with the justice of the citizen GZ, and of the fact of contact with this person in April 2012, at which time together with his husband they entered in a contractual relationship with that person.

Nino stated that the non-declaration of this contact has caused inaccuracies in filling out the form for the purity of the image and that this circumstance constitutes a flaw that can be considered as an insufficient declaration.

Even the international observer, Steven Kessler, raised questions about the fact that he had asked to give up the investigation of GZ, while declaring that he did not know him and had never had contact with that person.

The witness clarified that when it comes to investigating matters of that importance, he verifies all the documents to ascertain whether there is any reason to be in waiver conditions or not.

Commissioner Nino shares a different assessment of the facts and circumstances established for the inappropriate contacts with the accused for the incinerator affairs, Mirel Mërtir and his co-habitant, Stela Gugallian, as well as for Klodian Zoto. According to Nino, this is a consequence of the subject's husband's employment in the company created by these citizens, the use of vehicles or travel, reports Birn.

Nino listed all the data found regarding the persons involved in the incinerator affair. She found two trips, one in 2016 when the subject and her husband traveled together with Gugalljan and the other in 2018, in the direction of Vienna to visit her brother-in-law, Mirel Mërtir, due to the latter's health.

According to the Commissioner, in 2018, the companies of the three accused, Mirel Mërtiri, Stela Gugallja and Klodian Zoto, were referred to in the media as being involved in corruption in the case of incinerators. Meanwhile, according to her, it turned out that in January 2019, the subject used the vehicle owned by one of the accused, which turns out to have been used by four other people also investigated for the incinerator affair.

Nino submitted that in June 2020, the media reported the submission of a criminal report to SPAK regarding the issues of incinerators, the companies and the persons involved. According to her, criminal proceedings were registered in November of that year, while the husband used the vehicle that belonged to one of the involved companies.

According to the Commissioner, from May 2021 to November 2022, the persons involved in this affair were taken under investigation, among them the subject's brother-in-law and his roommate, while the husband of the prosecutor Mërtiri worked until August 2022 in one of the subcontracting companies with a very high salary.

Nino assesses that there is a clear series of facts and circumstances, proven by the administered acts, that indicate a continuity of relationship between the subject of the revaluation, her husband, brother-in-law, sister-in-law and father-in-law during the years 2002-2022. The commissioner notes that the subject's brother-in-law and his co-habitant have been investigated by SPAK for activities created since 2011 and have pleaded guilty in relation to the incinerator issues.

At the end of the presentation of this cause, Nino estimates that from the moment when the incinerator affair became public in 2018 and following, as well as the imposition of seizures on the assets of the companies administered by the family members of the subject's husband, are related to assessment in terms of the impact they have on public trust, for the purpose of the reassessment process.

The witness opposed the Commissioner's findings, calling them contrary to the law on the reassessment process. She said that there is no evidence that the husband has cooperated with his accused family members and emphasized that as soon as the investigation on these issues has started against them, they have stopped all communication.

The subject observed that the only business relationship between her husband and his brother was that of 2004-2007, when according to her, it did not bring any income.

The witness did not accept that the vehicle was used by her in 2019. She added that when she traveled once to Montenegro, none of the persons in question were prosecuted and therefore they cannot be considered as unsuitable persons.

The connection is due to the law, my marriage. I clarify that from the moment we were informed that criminal proceedings had been registered against them, contact with them was terminated. The TIMS data confirm that even before, my relationship with these people was indifferent," said Mërtiri.

She stated that in 2019, only her husband was in Vienna to visit her brother who was undergoing a surgical intervention, while she stated that she did not know why the Commissioner stated that she had also been the subject. "The commissioner includes peaceful things as part of the complaint," Mërtiri asserted.

Regarding her husband's employment, she said that he had never been a manager, but simply employed.

In the following, Mërtiri brought to attention that the punishment against other related persons is not final and according to her, these issues should not have become part of the public hearing.

Kessler asked the subject at length, among other things, about her and her husband's relationship with the latter's brother, Mirel Mërtiri, and his roommate, Stela Gugallja.

In response to Kessler's questions, she clarified that her brother-in-law's two minor children had visited her on occasion and had given them symbolic gifts on their birthdays. She admitted that she had traveled to Vienna once in 2016, while in 2019 she reiterated that only her husband had traveled to see her sick brother.

When asked where Mirel Mërtiri was currently located, the subject stated that he did not know as he had no contact. "If we refer to the media, it could be in Austria," she asserted and added that the last meeting her husband had with her brother was before the latter was processed.

According to the subject, her husband had decided to remain indifferent to this issue, waiting for the decisions of the relevant institutions.

In response to Kessler's successive questions, Mërtiri clarified that the husband was only employed in the companies created by his brother-in-law and his co-habitant. Several times she emphasized that she did not understand the context of the questions.

Kessler asked him if all the transactions carried out, from the donations to the proceedings of his brother-in-law and his cohabitant, affected the violation of public trust. The subject described it as a position of the international observer and not as a question. She said that there is only one transaction in 2011, while regarding the circumstances of the other persons referred by Kessler or the media, she asserted that they may be related to other related persons.

According to Mërtir, the law was being misinterpreted for a matter that is under investigation.

"I cannot be crucified for my husband's brother," said prosecutor Mërtiri, among other things.

Professionalism

Nino found that the subject has investigated the company Albpetrol sh.a. under conditions of apparent conflict of interest, as the husband was employed during that period. Also, for this case dismissed by Mërtiri on the grounds that there was no criminal offense, the Commissioner identifies several problems. According to Nino, the claim of the subject of the revaluation that there is no legal term in the phase of performing the verifications of the predicate material is unsupported.

Also, it is established that although in the acts of the criminal proceedings one of the representatives of the companies participating in an Albpetrol tender has raised suspicions of corrupt actions, the subject has not collected the telephone records, which could shed light on the communications between the members of the Commission or other senior officials of the company with the guards.

Nino asks that this matter be examined in terms of the ability to investigate, to make orders and decisions. She assesses that the state of conflict of interest in this case and some others with the company Albpetrol, constitute a basis for evaluating the case as a whole.

Next, Nino found that the entity decided in 2020 not to start a case in charge of a revaluation entity, with the argument that the administrative issue of its revaluation is still under consideration in the KPA.

The witness has decided not to start the investigation for an incriminating material where it was requested to check and evaluate the use of the income of the Fier Municipality during 2011, as well as the construction of the Sports Palace in this city.

According to Nino, the decision not to initiate criminal proceedings by the re-evaluation subject contains deficiencies in reasoning and justification for the lack of undertaking appropriate investigative actions. Meanwhile, it is established that the subject was in the conditions of a conflict of interest, since in 2011 it had benefited from the soft loan.

In a similar situation, Nino filed another complaint against the Fier Municipality for the criminal offenses "Abuse of duty" and "Forgery of documents".

The Public Commissioner stated that the proceedings taken under review, for which in all cases the subject has decided not to start or stop the criminal proceedings, contain obvious flaws and a lack of reasoning, which should be addressed in terms of the abilities to investigate, for take orders and decisions. According to Nino, in the treated cases, it turns out that the subject of the revaluation is in the conditions of a conflict of interest, a circumstance that, together with other shortcomings, is considered sufficient to fully evaluate the case.

In conclusion, Nino requested the dismissal of prosecutor Mariola Mërtiri.

Prosecutor Mërtiri clarified that she did not conduct interceptions for the report made against Albpetrol, as the instructions of the higher prosecutor at that time were mandatory. She claimed that the findings of the Commissioner do not hold and emphasized that her decision was found to be correct by the head of the prosecution and the complainant, who did not appeal.

The finding of lack of reasoning for the decision, the subject qualified as a comment of Nino. She added that the Commissioner's finding that the husband was employed in 2012 was intentional, as it was not true. According to Mërtir, the husband started working at Albetrol in October 2013. The subject added, in this company there are dozens of directors and the jobs are separated and that he had to give up only if it was about the husband's employer.

Mertiri asserted that he was always careful to recuse himself from issues when he found himself in conflict of interest conditions.

For a case for which Nino said that the decision of the subject and the First Instance to dismiss the case was overturned by the Appeal, the subject observed that even after investigations by two other prosecutors, the same result was reached again. "I don't understand why the Public Commissioner has not reflected it fully", said the subject.

Regarding soft credit, she said that this situation should be seen in terms of strengthening public confidence. The witness observed that the Public Commissioner could not enter into the logical reasoning of the decisions. She emphasized that she had always been evaluated very well and asked for the confirmation to be put into effect.

Lajmet e fundit nga