{"id":50608,"date":"2018-07-14T12:23:13","date_gmt":"2018-07-14T10:23:13","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.reporter.al\/?p=50608"},"modified":"2019-04-23T22:01:27","modified_gmt":"2019-04-23T22:01:27","slug":"veting-edhe-pas-doreheqjes-kpa-e-ndare-ne-qendrime-per-rastin-llalla","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/veting-edhe-pas-doreheqjes-kpa-e-ndare-ne-qendrime-per-rastin-llalla\/2018\/07\/14\/","title":{"rendered":"Veting edhe pas dor\u00ebheqjes? KPA e ndar\u00eb n\u00eb q\u00ebndrime p\u00ebr rastin \u201cLlalla\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"

Zbardhja e vendimit p\u00ebr ish-kryeprokurorin Adriatik Llalla tregon se Kolegji i Posa\u00e7\u00ebm i Apelimit ndau q\u00ebndrime t\u00eb ndryshme n\u00ebse duhej kryer apo jo procesi i rivler\u00ebsimit edhe pas dh\u00ebnies s\u00eb dor\u00ebheqjes, duke e l\u00ebn\u00eb t\u00eb hapur diskutimin p\u00ebr rastet e tjera t\u00eb ngjashme t\u00eb gjyqtar\u00ebve dhe prokuror\u00ebve. <\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Ish-kryeprokurori Adriatik Llalla. Foto: LSA<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Vendimi i zbardhur i Kolegjit t\u00eb Posa\u00e7\u00ebm t\u00eb Apelimit p\u00ebr ndalimin e procesit t\u00eb vetingut ndaj ish-kryeprokurorit Adriatik Llalla zbulon se ende nuk ka nj\u00eb mendim t\u00eb unifikuar rreth m\u00ebnyr\u00ebs se si do t\u00eb gjykohen rastet e ngjashme t\u00eb an\u00ebtar\u00ebve t\u00eb sistemit t\u00eb drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb q\u00eb japin dor\u00ebheqjen kur procesi i vetingut ka filluar. Shumica e trup\u00ebs\u00a0 gjykuese, p\u00ebrkat\u00ebsisht relatori i \u00e7\u00ebshtjes Luan Daci dhe gjyqtar\u00ebt Ina Rama e Ardian Hajdari u shpreh\u00ebn se vendimi i KPK-s\u00eb p\u00ebr t\u00eb nd\u00ebrprer\u00eb vetingun ishte i drejt\u00eb dhe se KPA duhej vet\u00ebm ta korrigjonte at\u00eb, duke shtuar n\u00eb vendim ndalimin 15-vje\u00e7ar t\u00eb kthimit n\u00eb sistem t\u00eb Llall\u00ebs. Nd\u00ebrkoh\u00eb pakica e p\u00ebrfaq\u00ebsuar nga \u00a0Albana Shtylla dhe Sokol \u00c7omo k\u00ebrkoi prishjen e vendimit, duke argumentuar se referimi n\u00eb nenin 56 t\u00eb ligjit 84\/2016 (P\u00ebr rivler\u00ebsimin kalimtar\u00eb t\u00eb gjyqtar\u00ebve e prokuror\u00ebve), ishte i gabuar pasi efektet e k\u00ebtij neni kishin mbaruar tre muaj pas hyrjes n\u00eb fuqi t\u00eb ligjit dhe p\u00ebr k\u00ebt\u00eb dor\u00ebheqja e bazuar mbi k\u00ebt\u00eb ligj nuk kishte baz\u00eb ligjore. Ata k\u00ebrkuan q\u00eb procesi i vetingut p\u00ebr ish-kryeprokurorin t\u00eb rihapej.<\/p>\n

Dor\u00ebheqja e Llall\u00ebs<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u00c7\u00ebshtja lindi menj\u00ebher\u00eb pasi Llall\u00ebs i mbaroi mandati si kryeprokuror n\u00eb dhjetor 2017 dhe u z\u00ebvend\u00ebsua n\u00eb detyr\u00eb nga Arta Marku. Vendimi i zbardhur i KPA-s\u00eb tregon se fillimisht ish-kryeprokurori i ka k\u00ebrkuar Komisionit t\u00eb nd\u00ebrpres\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimin p\u00ebr t\u00eb p\u00ebr shkak se ai nuk ishte m\u00eb Prokuror i P\u00ebrgjithsh\u00ebm.\u00a0 N\u00eb vendim del se Llalla i shkroi KPK-s\u00eb n\u00eb Janar duke pretenduar se ai \u201cnuk konsiderohet m\u00eb subjekt rivler\u00ebsimi, aq m\u00eb tep\u00ebr subjekt prioritar p\u00ebr t\u2019iu n\u00ebnshtruar rivler\u00ebsimit sipas ligjit\u201d.<\/p>\n

Por KPK e njoftoi ish-kryeprokurorin, ndaj t\u00eb cilit m\u00eb von\u00eb filloi edhe nj\u00eb hetim nga Prokuroria e Krimeve t\u00eb R\u00ebnda p\u00ebr pastrim parash, se procesi i rivler\u00ebsimit nuk nd\u00ebrpritej prej mbarimit \u201ct\u00eb mandatit t\u00eb Prokurorit t\u00eb P\u00ebrgjithsh\u00ebm, p\u00ebr shkak se ai g\u00ebzonte statusin e magjistratit dhe t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn e em\u00ebrimit n\u00eb nivel apeli\u201d.<\/p>\n

Kryetarja e KPK-s\u00eb i shkroi Llall\u00ebs se procesi mund t\u00eb nd\u00ebrpritej vet\u00ebm n\u00ebse ai jepte dor\u00ebheqjen nga ky status dhe po ashtu t\u00eb hiqte dor\u00eb nga e drejta e rikthimit n\u00eb sistem. Pas k\u00ebsaj, n\u00eb shkurt Llalla dha dor\u00ebheqjen pran\u00eb institucionit t\u00eb presidentit t\u00eb Republik\u00ebs duke u bazuar n\u00eb nenin 56 t\u00eb ligjit p\u00ebr rivler\u00ebsimin e gjykat\u00ebsve e prokuror\u00ebve dhe nenit p\u00ebrkat\u00ebs n\u00eb Kushtetut\u00eb. Menj\u00ebher\u00eb pasi u njoftua p\u00ebr k\u00ebt\u00eb KPK vendosi t\u00eb nd\u00ebrpres\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimin p\u00ebr Llall\u00ebn.<\/p>\n

Por kjo nd\u00ebrprerje u apelua nga Komisioneri Publik, i cili arsyetoi se kishte mang\u00ebsi n\u00eb vendimin e KPK dhe se dor\u00ebheqja- si\u00e7 ishte b\u00ebr\u00eb linte hap\u00ebsir\u00eb p\u00ebr \u201ckeqinterpretime\u201d. Llalla i cili nuk u paraqit n\u00eb seancat e zhvilluara n\u00eb KPA, k\u00ebmb\u00ebnguli p\u00ebrmes avokatit t\u00eb tij se dor\u00ebheqja ishte e vlefshme dhe se p\u00ebrmbushte kriteret ligjore.<\/p>\n

Vendimi i shumic\u00ebs <\/strong><\/p>\n

Tre nga pes\u00eb an\u00ebtar\u00ebt e trup\u00ebs gjykuese t\u00eb KPA n\u00eb fund t\u00eb shqyrtimit t\u00eb rastit i dhan\u00eb pjes\u00ebrisht t\u00eb drejt\u00eb Komisionerit Publik. Ata gjykuan se vendimi i KPK-s\u00eb duhej korrigjuar dhe n\u00eb t\u00eb duhej t\u00eb ishte b\u00ebr\u00eb e qart\u00eb q\u00eb Llalla nuk kishte t\u00eb drejt\u00eb t\u00eb rikthehej n\u00eb sistemin e drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb p\u00ebr 15 vjet.<\/p>\n

K\u00ebshtu ata vendos\u00ebn t\u00eb shtonin n\u00eb dispozitiv: \u201cNdalimin e em\u00ebrimit t\u00eb z.Adriatik Llalla gjyqtar ose prokuror i \u00e7do niveli, an\u00ebtar i K\u00ebshillit t\u00eb Lart\u00eb Gjyq\u00ebsor ose i K\u00ebshillit t\u00eb Lart\u00eb t\u00eb Prokuroris\u00eb, Inspektor i Lart\u00eb i Drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb, Prokuror i P\u00ebrgjithsh\u00ebm, p\u00ebr nj\u00eb periudh\u00eb prej 15 vitesh.\u201d<\/p>\n

KPA po ashtu n\u00eb arsyetim u shpreh se KPK duhej ta p\u00ebrdorte k\u00ebt\u00eb n\u00eb vendime t\u00eb m\u00ebvonshme. \u201cDuhet t\u00eb p\u00ebrfshihet edhe parashikimi i paragrafit 2 t\u00eb nenit G t\u00eb Aneksit t\u00eb Kushtetut\u00ebs, i cili sanksionon ndalimin p\u00ebr em\u00ebrim, i cili duhet t\u00eb aplikohet n\u00eb rastin kur subjektet e rivler\u00ebsimit dor\u00ebhiqen nga detyra dhe procesi i rivler\u00ebsimit ndaj tyre nd\u00ebrpritet\u201d, arsyetuan tre gjykat\u00ebsit n\u00eb mendimin e shumic\u00ebs.<\/p>\n

Ata than\u00eb se \u201cnj\u00eb vendimarrje e pajisur me k\u00ebto elemente, heq \u00e7do mund\u00ebsi p\u00ebr keqinterpretime apo abuzime me t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn\u201d. Arsyetimi l\u00eb t\u00eb kuptohet se dor\u00ebheqja, t\u00eb cil\u00ebn Kushtetuta nuk e kufizon n\u00eb koh\u00eb, \u00ebsht\u00eb n\u00eb p\u00ebrputhje me q\u00ebllimin e procesit t\u00eb vetingut, pra largimin nga sistemi t\u00eb personave q\u00eb nuk mund ta kalojn\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb proces.<\/p>\n

P\u00ebrcaktimi i k\u00ebtij kufizimi n\u00eb vendim sipas tre gjykat\u00ebsve \u201cgaranton mbrojtjen e interesit t\u00eb publikut t\u00eb sanksionuar n\u00eb Kushtetut\u00eb, p\u00ebr t\u00eb mos lejuar kthimin e k\u00ebsaj kategorie subjektesh n\u00eb sistemin e drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb p\u00ebr periudh\u00ebn e p\u00ebrcaktuar n\u00eb Aneksin e Kushtetut\u00ebs\u201d.<\/p>\n

Nga ana tjet\u00ebr, shumica rr\u00ebzoi k\u00ebrkes\u00ebn e Komisionerit p\u00ebr prishje t\u00eb vendimit. Duke u bazuar kryesisht n\u00eb faktin se KPA kishte t\u00eb drejt\u00eb t\u00eb ndryshonte vendimet e KPK-s\u00eb dhe t\u2019i korrigjonte ato, shumica u shpreh se vendimi nuk do t\u00eb rikthehej p\u00ebr shqyrtim.<\/p>\n

Ata po ashtu vler\u00ebsuan se n\u00eb proces dhe gjat\u00eb shqyrtimit nga KPA akti i dor\u00ebheqjes ishte b\u00ebr\u00eb i qart\u00eb p\u00ebrmes avokatit dhe se nuk kishte arsye p\u00ebr t\u00eb dyshuar se ai ishte b\u00ebr\u00eb me vullnet t\u00eb lir\u00eb. Megjithat\u00eb ata k\u00ebrkuan q\u00eb n\u00eb raste t\u00eb ngjashme, KPK duhej t\u00eb merrte parasysh k\u00ebt\u00eb vendim duke k\u00ebrkuar q\u00eb Komisioni t\u00eb hetoj\u00eb n\u00ebse dor\u00ebheqa \u00ebsht\u00eb b\u00ebr\u00eb me vullnet t\u00eb lir\u00eb dhe t\u00eb p\u00ebrcaktoj\u00eb n\u00eb vendim efektet e k\u00ebsaj do\u00ebrheqje.<\/p>\n

Q\u00ebndrimi i pakic\u00ebs<\/strong><\/p>\n

Dy gjykat\u00ebs t\u00eb Kolegjit t\u00eb Posa\u00e7\u00ebm t\u00eb Apelimit argumentuan se vendimi duhej t\u00eb ishte prishur dhe procesi i vetingut p\u00ebr Llall\u00ebn t\u00eb rihapej. Ata shkruan n\u00eb mendimin e pakic\u00ebs se ai (vendimi i KPK) ishte marr\u00eb duke zbatuar gabim ligjin dhe n\u00eb keqinterpretim t\u00eb Kushtetut\u00ebs.<\/p>\n

Ata than\u00eb se dor\u00ebheqja e Llall\u00ebs te institucioni i Presidentit t\u00eb Republik\u00ebs ishte bazuar n\u00eb nj\u00eb dispozit\u00eb, e cila kishte humbur fuqin\u00eb ligjore dhe si e till\u00eb, nuk ka arritur t\u00eb prodhoj\u00eb efektet e pritshme juridike p\u00ebr t\u00eb mund\u00ebsuar nd\u00ebrprejen e procesit t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit\u201d.<\/p>\n

Po ashtu, pakica argumentoi se n\u00eb rastin konkret KPK duhej t\u00eb kishte kryer seanc\u00ebn d\u00ebgjimore dhe respektuar t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn e subjektit p\u00ebr \u201ct\u2019u d\u00ebgjuar\u201d.<\/p>\n

Pakica u shpreh se bazuar n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb fakt vendimi duhej prishur. Ata arsyetuan se nd\u00ebrsa Kushtetuta nuk ia lejonte KPA-s\u00eb t\u00eb kthente pas vendimet p\u00ebrfundimtare t\u00eb KPK-s\u00eb kur kjo kishte kryer rivler\u00ebsimin e subjektit, por n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb rast vendimi ishte p\u00ebr nd\u00ebrprerje t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit dhe KPA kishte t\u00eb drejt\u00eb ta prishte at\u00eb. Pakica arsyetoi se vendimi duhej prishur dhe KPK duhej t\u00eb rifillonte procesin e vetingut p\u00ebr Adriatik Llall\u00ebn.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Zbardhja e vendimit p\u00ebr ish-kryeprokurorin Adriatik Llalla tregon se Kolegji i Posa\u00e7\u00ebm i Apelimit ndau q\u00ebndrime t\u00eb ndryshme n\u00ebse duhej kryer apo jo procesi i rivler\u00ebsimit edhe pas dh\u00ebnies s\u00eb dor\u00ebheqjes, duke e l\u00ebn\u00eb t\u00eb hapur diskutimin p\u00ebr rastet e tjera t\u00eb ngjashme t\u00eb gjyqtar\u00ebve dhe prokuror\u00ebve.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":97,"featured_media":69540,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[13,6],"tags":[],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/www.reporter.al\/wp-content\/uploads\/4-Adriatik-Llalla-600x360.gif","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50608"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/97"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=50608"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50608\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":61941,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50608\/revisions\/61941"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/69540"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=50608"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=50608"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=50608"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}