{"id":50614,"date":"2018-07-15T13:39:29","date_gmt":"2018-07-15T11:39:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.reporter.al\/?p=50614"},"modified":"2019-04-23T22:01:27","modified_gmt":"2019-04-23T22:01:27","slug":"pasurite-e-te-afermve-te-kreut-te-gjykates-kushtetuese-ndajne-kpk-ne","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/pasurite-e-te-afermve-te-kreut-te-gjykates-kushtetuese-ndajne-kpk-ne\/2018\/07\/15\/","title":{"rendered":"Pasurit\u00eb e t\u00eb af\u00ebrmve t\u00eb kreut t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs Kushtetuese ndajn\u00eb KPK-n\u00eb"},"content":{"rendered":"

Zbardhja e vendimit t\u00eb KPK-s\u00eb p\u00ebr konfirmimin n\u00eb detyr\u00eb t\u00eb kreut e Gjykat\u00ebs Kushtetuese Bashkim Dedja tregon se brenda Komisionit t\u00eb Pavarur t\u00eb Kualifikimit ka dy arsyetime t\u00eb ndryshme p\u00ebr sa i p\u00ebrket m\u00ebnyr\u00ebs se si do t\u00eb cil\u00ebsohen pasurit\u00eb e t\u00eb af\u00ebrmve t\u00eb subjekteve t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit t\u00eb fituara n\u00eb emigracion.\u00a0<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Kryetari i Gjykates Kushtetuese Bashkim Dedja, duke hyre ne nje seance te jashtezakonshme parlamentare,| Foto nga : LSA<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Vendimi i Komisionit t\u00eb Pavarur t\u00eb Kualifikimit, p\u00ebr t\u00eb rikonfirmuar n\u00eb detyr\u00eb t\u00eb kreut t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs Kushtetuese Bashkim Dedja \u00ebsht\u00eb vendim n\u00eb radh\u00eb q\u00eb beh\u00ebt me shumic\u00eb votash, nd\u00ebrsa duket se n\u00eb KPK po p\u00ebrvijohen dy linja t\u00eb ndryshme mendimi mbi ligjshm\u00ebrin\u00eb ose jo t\u00eb pasurive t\u00eb subjekteve t\u00eb vetingut.<\/p>\n

Vendimi i zbardhur s\u00eb fundmi tregon se shumica e trup\u00ebs gjykuese q\u00eb ka votuar pro konfirmimit t\u00eb gjyqtarit, e p\u00ebrfaq\u00ebsuar n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb vendim nga Valbona Sanxhaktari si kryesuese dhe Roland Ilia an\u00ebtar, ka nj\u00eb q\u00ebndrim \u201ct\u00eb zbutur\u201d ndaj ndryshimit t\u00eb deklarimeve n\u00eb vite duke mos i konsideruar deklarim t\u00eb rrem\u00eb q\u00eb do t\u00eb detyronte shkarkimin nga detyra t\u00eb subjektit. Po ashtu shumica ka pranuar arsyetimet e mbrojtjes p\u00ebr parat\u00eb e fituara n\u00eb emigracion, duke cituar k\u00ebt\u00eb t\u00eb fundit se \u201c70 % e familjeve shqiptare kishin t\u00eb pakt\u00ebn nj\u00eb person n\u00eb emigracion, pa dokumente\u201d.Shumica vet\u00eb argumenton n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb pik\u00eb se koha e kaluar n\u00eb emigracion e personave q\u00eb japin hua \u00ebsht\u00eb e madhe dhe se gjat\u00eb atyre viteve ato i kishin mund\u00ebsit\u00eb t\u00eb kursenin rreth 1 mij\u00eb euro n\u00eb vit q\u00eb pastaj ia kan\u00eb dh\u00ebn\u00eb hua gjykat\u00ebsit.<\/p>\n

N\u00eb krahun tjet\u00ebr Xhensila Pine, relatorja e \u00e7\u00ebshtjes q\u00eb u ve\u00e7ua n\u00eb kritik\u00eb edhe nga avokati i Dedjas pas marrjes s\u00eb vendimit<\/a>, k\u00ebrkoi shkarkimin e gjykat\u00ebsit dhe i cil\u00ebsoi ndryshimet e deklaratave mbi pasurin\u00eb si \u201cdeklarim i rrem\u00eb\u201d dhe k\u00ebmb\u00ebngul n\u00eb paligjshm\u00ebrin\u00eb e pasurive t\u00eb fituara n\u00eb emigracion t\u00eb cilat nuk mund t\u00eb provohen. Diferenca t\u00eb ngjashme n\u00eb q\u00ebndrime u gjet\u00ebn t\u00eb reflektuara edhe n\u00eb vendimet p\u00ebr dy koleg\u00ebt e Dedjas, Altina Xhoxhaj<\/a> e Fatmir Hoxha<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Nd\u00ebrkoh\u00eb Komisioneri Publik, i cili s\u00eb fundmi apeloi vendimin e KPK-s\u00eb p\u00ebr t\u00eb konfirmuar n\u00eb detyr\u00eb an\u00ebtarin e Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb Edmond Islamaj, mbajti n\u00eb apelim<\/a> nj\u00eb q\u00ebndrim mjaft t\u00eb ngjash\u00ebm me grupin e gjykat\u00ebsve t\u00eb KPK t\u00eb cil\u00ebt k\u00ebmb\u00ebngulin n\u00eb provueshm\u00ebri t\u00eb plot\u00eb t\u00eb pasuris\u00eb dhe nuk kan\u00eb pranuar si argument emigracionin dhe pun\u00ebn n\u00eb t\u00eb zez\u00eb.<\/p>\n

Bashkim Dedja, i cili drejton prej vitit 2012\u00a0 Gjykat\u00ebn Kushtetuese ku u em\u00ebrua n\u00eb vitin 2010, ishte gjykat\u00ebsi i dyt\u00eb i saj pas Vitore Tush\u00ebs q\u00eb arriti t\u00eb kalonte rivler\u00ebsimin n\u00eb KPK. M\u00eb her\u00ebt Komisioni rr\u00ebzoi gjyqtar\u00ebt Fatos Lulo, Altina Xhoxhaj dhe Fatmir Hoxh\u00eb, nd\u00ebrsa an\u00ebtari tjet\u00ebr k\u00ebsaj gjykate Besnik Ymeraj dha dor\u00ebheqjen duke iu shmangur procesit. I fundit n\u00eb proces \u00ebsht\u00eb Gani Dizdari, vendimi p\u00ebr t\u00eb cilin shpallet m\u00eb 16 korrik. Disa dit\u00eb pasi u konfirmua n\u00eb KPK, Dedja i cili ka punuar n\u00eb sistemin e drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb q\u00eb prej fillimit t\u00eb viteve 90\u2019 foli n\u00eb nj\u00eb konferenc\u00eb p\u00ebr mediat<\/a> duke e cil\u00ebsuar procesin t\u00eb ashp\u00ebr, por \u201cgj\u00eb shum\u00eb t\u00eb mir\u00eb\u201d.<\/p>\n

Arsyetimi mbi parat\u00eb e fituara n\u00eb emigracion<\/strong><\/p>\n

Kreu i Kushtetueses Bashkim Dedja paraqiti n\u00eb justifikimin e pasuris\u00eb s\u00eb tij nj\u00eb hua n\u00eb vler\u00ebn 25 mij\u00eb euro nga i v\u00ebllai dhe kunati emigrant\u00eb p\u00ebr blerjen e nj\u00eb apartamenti 146 metra katror\u00eb me vler\u00eb 180 mij\u00eb euro (pjesa tjet\u00ebr e paguar me kursime dhe kredi), nd\u00ebrsa po ashtu p\u00ebrfshiu t\u00eb v\u00ebllain edhe si ndihmues n\u00eb blerjen e nj\u00eb apartamenti t\u00eb m\u00ebhersh\u00ebm 93 metra katror\u00eb.<\/p>\n

KPK megjithat\u00eb nuk ishte e nj\u00eb mendimi sa i p\u00ebrket justifikimit t\u00eb parave t\u00eb fituara n\u00eb emigracion q\u00eb sh\u00ebrbyen si burim p\u00ebr huat\u00eb. Nd\u00ebrsa shumica pranoi dhe justifikoi se p\u00ebr k\u00ebto t\u00eb ardhura mund t\u00eb mos ishin paguar taksa n\u00eb Shqip\u00ebri dhe se mund t\u00eb mos kishte dokumentacion v\u00ebrtetues as nga shteti ku ata punuan, an\u00ebtarja n\u00eb pakic\u00eb arsyetoi se ato duhej t\u00eb konsideroheshin t\u00eb paligjshme.<\/p>\n

\u201cSa i p\u00ebrket faktit t\u00eb p\u00ebrcaktimit t\u00eb aft\u00ebsis\u00eb paguese t\u00eb kunatit t\u00eb subjektit t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit, trupi gjykues vler\u00ebson se, nisur nga nj\u00eb periudh\u00eb relativisht e gjat\u00eb, nga viti 2002 deri n\u00eb vitin 2013, kur i ka dh\u00ebn\u00eb huan e sip\u00ebrp\u00ebrmendur, pra p\u00ebr nj\u00eb periudh\u00eb 10-vje\u00e7are, z. E. C. mund t\u00eb kursente t\u00eb pakt\u00ebn shum\u00ebn prej 1.000 eurosh p\u00ebr \u00e7do vit, duke i dh\u00ebn\u00eb ato hua pa kund\u00ebrshp\u00ebrblim p\u00ebr subjektin e rivler\u00ebsimit\u201d, thuhet n\u00eb arsyetimin e shumic\u00ebs.<\/p>\n

Kjo e fundit doli n\u00eb p\u00ebrfundimin se t\u00eb ardhurat e kunatit ishin t\u00eb mjaftueshme. Ajo po ashtu cil\u00ebsoi t\u00eb mjaftueshme provat e paraqitura prej k\u00ebtij t\u00eb fundit p\u00ebr pun\u00ebn e b\u00ebr\u00eb n\u00eb Itali, nd\u00ebrsa e p\u00ebrjashtoi at\u00eb nga detyrimi p\u00ebr t\u00eb treguar se kishte paguar tatim p\u00ebr t\u00eb ardhurat duke iu referuar ligjit italian dhe faktit se ai nuk kishte qen\u00eb m\u00eb her\u00ebt subjekt q\u00eb duhej t\u00eb vet\u00ebdeklaronte pasurin\u00eb.<\/p>\n

T\u00eb nj\u00ebjtin argument shumica p\u00ebrdori n\u00eb rastin e v\u00ebllait q\u00eb i kishte dh\u00ebn\u00eb Dedjas 15 mij\u00eb euro hua p\u00ebr apartamentin e bler\u00eb 180 mij\u00eb euro, me kredi, hua dhe kursime. \u201cV\u00ebllai i subjektit nuk kishte ndonj\u00eb detyrim p\u00ebr t\u00eb deklaruar t\u00eb ardhurat e realizuara n\u00eb shtetin grek, dhe rrjedhimisht nuk shihet ndonj\u00eb shkak q\u00eb k\u00ebto t\u00eb ardhura t\u00eb realizuara nga v\u00ebllai i subjektit deri n\u00eb vitin 2014 t\u00eb konsiderohen si t\u00eb ardhura t\u00eb paligjshme\u201d, thuhet n\u00eb argumentimin e shumic\u00ebs s\u00eb trupit gjykues.<\/p>\n

Shumica argumentoi se detyrimi i p\u00ebrcaktuar n\u00eb Kushtetut\u00eb p\u00ebr t\u00eb p\u00ebrcaktuar si t\u00eb ligjshme vet\u00ebm t\u00eb ardhurat p\u00ebr t\u00eb cilat ishte paguar tatim, binte vet\u00ebm mbi vet\u00eb subjektin dhe jo mbi t\u00eb af\u00ebrmin e tij.\u00a0 Ata arsyetuan se \u201cn\u00eb rastin n\u00eb fjal\u00eb, huaja e marr\u00eb \u00ebsht\u00eb nj\u00eb detyrim, i cili do t\u00eb z\u00ebvend\u00ebsohet nga subjekti i rivler\u00ebsimit, me kthimin e saj, me t\u00eb ardhurat e vet\u00eb subjektit t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit, t\u00eb cilat duhet t\u00eb jen\u00eb sipas p\u00ebrcaktimeve t\u00eb k\u00ebsaj dispozite\u201d. Gjithashtu shumica i mori t\u00eb mir\u00ebqena provat e sjella nga v\u00ebllai i gjykat\u00ebsit dhe pranoi se ai kishte mjaftuesh\u00ebm kursime p\u00ebr t\u00eb dh\u00ebn\u00eb huan\u00eb, pasi kishte 20 vjet pun\u00eb n\u00eb Greqi.<\/p>\n

P\u00ebrndryshe e mbetur n\u00eb pakic\u00eb Pine i cil\u00ebsoi k\u00ebto argumente t\u00eb pamjaftueshme. Ajo konsideroi se p\u00ebr t\u00eb dy huat\u00eb Dedja kishte b\u00ebr\u00eb deklarim t\u00eb rrem\u00eb dhe jo n\u00eb p\u00ebrputhje me ligjin. Sipas saj as kunati E.C dhe as v\u00ebllai n\u00eb Greqi nuk kishin paraqitur prova se kishin mjaftuesh\u00ebm t\u00eb ardhura.<\/p>\n

Sipas saj nd\u00ebrsa mund t\u00eb pranohej q\u00eb t\u00eb dy nuk kishin pasur dokumente gjat\u00eb koh\u00ebs q\u00eb kishin qen\u00eb emigrant\u00eb ilegal\u00eb, ata nuk kishin sjell\u00eb asnj\u00eb dokument zyrtar\u00eb nga shteti italian apo ai grek p\u00ebr t\u00eb ardhurat gjat\u00eb koh\u00ebs q\u00eb ishin emigrant\u00eb t\u00eb ligjsh\u00ebm.<\/p>\n

Ajo tha se dy dokumente t\u00eb paraqitura nga kunati n\u00eb Itali, p\u00ebrpos se nuk ishin t\u00eb plota kund\u00ebrshtonin nj\u00ebri-tjetrin, nd\u00ebrsa nj\u00ebri e cil\u00ebsonte t\u00eb pun\u00ebsuar n\u00eb pun\u00eb sht\u00ebpie dhe tjetri thoshte se ai punonte n\u00eb bujq\u00ebsi.<\/p>\n

Po ashtu ajo shpjegoi se dokumentet p\u00ebr t\u00eb v\u00ebrtetuar pun\u00ebsimin e t\u00eb v\u00ebllait q\u00eb prej vitit 2002 kur ai dhe e shoqja kishin\u00a0 marr\u00eb leje t\u00eb rregullt q\u00ebndrimi n\u00eb Greqi duhej t\u00eb ishin zyrtare. \u201cJan\u00eb emigrant\u00eb t\u00eb rregullt n\u00eb Greqi dhe, si t\u00eb till\u00eb, nuk kishte arsye se pse t\u00eb mos punonin konform rregullave t\u00eb parashikuara nga ana e legjislacionit grek\u201d, arsyetoi Pine.<\/p>\n

P\u00ebrndryshe sipas saj ata kan\u00eb paraqitur dokumente q\u00eb nuk mund t\u00eb konsideroheshin si prova nga qytetar\u00eb t\u00eb thjesht\u00eb grek\u00eb dhe n\u00eb nj\u00eb rast Pine thot\u00eb se vet\u00eb dokumenti \u201cp\u00ebrmban nj\u00eb vul\u00eb, q\u00eb thot\u00eb: “Kjo certifikat\u00eb nuk mund t\u2019u paraqitet autoriteteve publike ose subjekteve private q\u00eb ofrojn\u00eb sh\u00ebrbime publike […]”. Duke theksuar se:\u00a0 \u201cNuk \u00ebsht\u00eb depozituar asnj\u00eb dokumentacion p\u00ebr t\u00eb provuar pages\u00ebn e detyrimeve tatimore dhe sigurimeve shoq\u00ebrore n\u00eb shtetin grek apo shtetin shqiptar,\u201d duke e cil\u00ebsoi si t\u00eb pa provuar burimin e ligjsh\u00ebm t\u00eb 15 mij\u00eb eurove.<\/p>\n

Relatorja gjeti t\u00eb dyshimt\u00eb edhe faktin se v\u00ebllai i Dedjas doli pjes\u00ebtar edhe n\u00eb nj\u00eb pasuri t\u00eb v\u00ebllait tjet\u00ebr t\u00eb tij n\u00eb nj\u00eb apartament n\u00eb Golem, p\u00ebr t\u00eb cilin Dedja kishte b\u00ebr\u00eb kontrat\u00ebn me OSHEE dhe kishte paguar rregullisht energjin\u00eb. Ai po ashtu kishte nj\u00eb apartament\u00a0 t\u00eb bllokuar nga banka p\u00ebr nj\u00eb kredi 25 mij\u00eb euro- thuajse n\u00eb t\u00eb nj\u00ebjt\u00ebn koh\u00eb me huan\u00eb p\u00ebr Dedjan, dhe t\u00eb gjitha k\u00ebto me burim t\u00eb ardhurat nga puna si fermer n\u00eb Greqi.<\/p>\n

Debati mbi apartamentin 98 metra katror\u00eb<\/strong><\/p>\n

Vendimi p\u00ebr konfirmimin e Dedjas ishte \u201csuprizues\u201d p\u00ebr ata q\u00eb ndoq\u00ebn si rrodhi seanca d\u00ebgjimore, kur relatorja Xhensila Pine renditi nj\u00eb s\u00ebr\u00eb problemesh t\u00eb gjetura sipas saj n\u00eb pasurin\u00eb e gjyqtarit. Megjithat\u00eb dy koleg\u00ebt e saj n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb trup\u00eb gjykuese Valbona Sanxhaktari dhe Roland Ilia, e p\u00ebrmbys\u00ebn relacioni e p\u00ebrgatitur prej saj.<\/p>\n

K\u00ebshtu, q\u00ebndrimi i Pines n\u00eb lidhje me nj\u00eb apartament t\u00eb bler\u00eb nga Dedja n\u00eb vitit 1997 \u00ebsht\u00eb mjaft i ndrysh\u00ebm nga vendimi i dy gjyqtar\u00ebve n\u00eb shumic\u00eb. Pine thot\u00eb se nga hetimet rezultoi se Dedja n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb rast kishte b\u00ebr\u00eb \u201cdeklarim t\u00eb rrem\u00eb\u201d, \u201cka mosdeklarim t\u00eb vler\u00ebs s\u00eb apartamentit\u201d dhe \u201cmunges\u00eb t\u00eb burimeve t\u00eb ligjshme p\u00ebr t\u00eb ardhurat e v\u00ebllait n\u00eb Greqi\u201d. Gjithashtu, Pine ka gjykuar se ndryshimi i deklarimit fillestar nga ana e gjykat\u00ebsit, n\u00eb t\u00eb cilin ai kishte th\u00ebn\u00eb se \u201cburimi i krijimit t\u00eb k\u00ebsaj pasurie kan\u00eb qen\u00eb t\u00eb ardhurat e mia\u201d, por q\u00eb pasi \u00ebsht\u00eb v\u00ebn\u00eb n\u00eb dijeni se t\u00eb ardhurat p\u00ebr vitet n\u00eb fjal\u00eb\u00a0 nuk ishin t\u00eb mjaftueshme shtoi edhe t\u00eb v\u00ebllain si pjes\u00ebtar n\u00eb blerje, e b\u00ebjn\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb pasuri problematike.<\/p>\n

Pine po ashtu ka cil\u00ebsuar si problematik faktin q\u00eb gjykat\u00ebsi nuk kishte deklaruar nj\u00eb rivler\u00ebsim t\u00eb k\u00ebsaj prone. Sipas Pines mbrojtja e gjykat\u00ebsit se rivler\u00ebsimi ishte b\u00ebr\u00eb automatikisht bazuar nga vendimet e qeveris\u00eb nuk ishte i v\u00ebrtet\u00eb, nd\u00ebrsa ajo shtoi se ishte Dedja q\u00eb kishte paguar p\u00ebr rivler\u00ebsimin p\u00ebr t\u2019i rritur k\u00ebshtu vler\u00ebn pasuris\u00eb, duke e cil\u00ebsuar k\u00ebt\u00eb mosdeklarim.<\/p>\n

Pine v\u00ebrejti edhe disa mosrakordime n\u00eb shumat e raportuara apo deklarimin p\u00ebr vitin kur pallati ishte p\u00ebrfunduar.\u00a0 Sipas saj gabimet e b\u00ebra nga gjykat\u00ebsi n\u00eb k\u00ebto deklarime nuk ishin t\u00eb paq\u00ebllimshme, sa koh\u00eb ishin b\u00ebr\u00eb disa vite pas p\u00ebrfundimit t\u00eb nd\u00ebrtimit.<\/p>\n

N\u00eb krahun tjet\u00ebr Sanxhaktari dhe Ilia kan\u00eb argumentuar se deklarimet e dh\u00ebna nga gjyqtari ishin n\u00eb \u201cp\u00ebrputhje me gjetjet e hetimit t\u00eb Komisionit t\u00eb Pavarur t\u00eb Kualifikimit\u201d. Ata pranuan argumentin e gjykat\u00ebsit se shuma e fituar prej tij n\u00eb vitet 93-97 ishte e mjaftueshme p\u00ebr t\u00eb paguar k\u00ebstin e par\u00eb t\u00eb apartamentit dhe gjithashtu pranuan argumentin se v\u00ebllai i gjyqtarit kishte kontribuar n\u00eb blerje.<\/p>\n

Duke pasur parasysh problemet e gjetura nga Pine shumica arsyetoi se \u201cObjekti i hetimit t\u00eb Komisionit t\u00eb Pavarur t\u00eb Kualifikimit \u00ebsht\u00eb kontrolli i pasurive t\u00eb deklaruara gjat\u00eb periudh\u00ebs s\u00eb ushtrimit t\u00eb funksionit t\u00eb subjektit t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsuar dhe jo kontrolli i deklaratave t\u00eb pasuris\u00eb t\u00eb b\u00ebra gjat\u00eb viteve\u201d. Ata po ashtu justifikuan Dedjan p\u00ebr ndryshimin e shum\u00ebs s\u00eb paguar, duke pranuar asryetimin se gjat\u00eb koh\u00ebs mund t\u00eb ishin b\u00ebr\u00eb punime shtes\u00eb. P\u00ebrndryshe nga Pine ata arsyetuan se pjes\u00ebmarrja e v\u00ebllait t\u00eb gjykat\u00ebsit n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb blerje ishte e provueshme dhe po ashtu pasurin\u00eb e tij e cil\u00ebsuan t\u00eb ligjshme duke pranuar argumentin se n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb koh\u00eb shum\u00eb emigrant\u00eb ishin ilegal\u00eb n\u00eb vendet ku punonin.<\/p>\n

\u201cReferuar koh\u00ebs kur kjo pasuri \u00ebsht\u00eb bler\u00eb, vitit 1997, \u00e7dokush mund t\u00eb gjendet n\u00eb situata t\u00eb pamund\u00ebsis\u00eb p\u00ebr t\u00eb qen\u00eb i sakt\u00eb n\u00eb deklarime, por sqarimet e dh\u00ebna treguan se subjekti ka pasur mund\u00ebsi financiare p\u00ebr t\u00eb bler\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb pasuri t\u00eb paluajtshme dhe se pasakt\u00ebsit\u00eb nuk kan\u00eb qen\u00eb t\u00eb q\u00ebllimshme\u201d, thuhet n\u00eb arsytimin p\u00ebrfundimtar t\u00eb shumic\u00ebs p\u00ebr k\u00ebt\u00eb pasuri.<\/p>\n

Trajtimi i pasakt\u00ebsive<\/strong><\/p>\n

Nj\u00eb prej argumenteve kund\u00ebr konfirmimit t\u00eb Dedjas nga relatorja Xhensila Pine ishte paraqitja prej tij e t\u00eb dh\u00ebnave t\u00eb ndryshme. Nj\u00eb nd\u00ebr k\u00ebto t\u00eb dh\u00ebna ishte pretendimi fillestar p\u00ebrmes nj\u00eb kontrate noteriale p\u00ebr nj\u00eb hua t\u00eb marr\u00eb nga kunati E.C n\u00eb vitin 2014, por q\u00eb pasi KPK gjeti se ky nuk kishte qen\u00eb n\u00eb Shqip\u00ebri n\u00eb at\u00eb koh\u00eb ndryshoi n\u00eb hua t\u00eb marr\u00eb nga vjehrri n\u00eb po t\u00eb nj\u00ebjt\u00ebn koh\u00eb.<\/p>\n

\u201cRezulton se jemi n\u00eb kushtet e deklarimit t\u00eb rrem\u00eb nga ana e subjekti i rivler\u00ebsimit, pasi ai n\u00eb deklarat\u00ebn – veting deklaron se shum\u00ebn 10.000 euro ia ka marr\u00eb hua z. E. C., nd\u00ebrsa ndryshon deklarimin, duke u shprehur se kjo shum\u00eb i \u00ebsht\u00eb dh\u00ebn\u00eb nga ana e vjehrrit t\u00eb tij\u201d, thot\u00eb relatorja.<\/p>\n

Por nga ana e saj shumica nuk e gjeti k\u00ebt\u00eb p\u00ebrplasje deklaratash si nj\u00eb problem. \u201cTrupi gjykues vler\u00ebson se objekti i vler\u00ebsimit t\u00eb pasuris\u00eb \u00ebsht\u00eb deklarimi dhe kontrolli i pasurive, i ligjshm\u00ebris\u00eb s\u00eb burimit t\u00eb krijimit t\u00eb tyre… dhe jo m\u00ebnyra e kryerjes s\u00eb pagesave dhe m\u00ebnyra e ekzekutimit t\u00eb detyrimit\u201d, thuhet n\u00eb arsyetimin e Sanxhaktarit dhe Ilias. Sipas tyre nuk ishte e r\u00ebnd\u00ebsishme se \u201ccili ishte personi q\u00eb ka dor\u00ebzuar fizikisht shum\u00ebn e huas subjektit t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit, kunati apo i atit i kunatit\u201d. Ata i konsideruan t\u00eb mjaftueshme shpjegimet e dh\u00ebna nga vjehrri i Dedjas, duke e cil\u00ebsuar t\u00eb ligjshme k\u00ebt\u00eb prov\u00eb.<\/p>\n

Po ashtu gjetja e nj\u00eb kontrate t\u00eb OSHE n\u00eb em\u00ebr t\u00eb Dedjas p\u00ebr nj\u00eb apartament n\u00eb Golem u trajtua n\u00eb m\u00ebnyra t\u00eb ndryshme nga pakica dhe shumica. Pine e cil\u00ebsoi at\u00eb si nj\u00eb dyshim p\u00ebr pasuri t\u00eb fshehur, por shumica tha se nuk kishte asnj\u00eb prov\u00eb direkte apo indirekte, duke pranuar arsyetimin e Dedjas se ai kishte marr\u00eb p\u00ebrsip\u00ebr pages\u00ebn e energjis\u00eb p\u00ebr leht\u00ebsi dhe se shumat e paguara ishin simbolike.<\/p>\n

Shumica n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb rast p\u00ebrjashtoi v\u00ebllain e Dedjas, i cili banonte n\u00eb Dib\u00ebr nga detyrimi p\u00ebr t\u00eb shpjeguar pasurin\u00eb, duke argumentuar se ishin n\u00eb \u201cmunges\u00eb t\u00eb indicieve t\u00eb forta dhe t\u00eb nd\u00ebrthurura me nj\u00ebra-tjetr\u00ebn, q\u00eb hedhin drit\u00eb mbi posedimin dhe zot\u00ebrimin e sendit nga subjekti i rivler\u00ebsimit\u201d.<\/p>\n

Ata po ashtu pranuan se v\u00ebllai i subjektit kishte t\u00eb ardhura p\u00ebr t\u00eb bler\u00eb apartamentin 1.9 milion lek\u00eb, duke cil\u00ebsuar t\u00eb mjaftueshme t\u00eb ardhurat nga puna n\u00eb blegtori e bujq\u00ebsi n\u00eb Dib\u00ebr, ku sipas shumic\u00ebs n\u00eb KPK, v\u00ebllai i gjykat\u00ebsit zot\u00ebronte rreth 10 mij\u00eb metra tok\u00eb ar\u00eb.<\/p>\n

Pine tha se ekspertiza nuk i jepte t\u00eb drejt\u00eb shumic\u00ebs, se t\u00eb dh\u00ebnat p\u00ebr pasurin\u00eb e v\u00ebllait q\u00eb jeton n\u00eb fshat nuk ishin t\u00eb plota, nd\u00ebrsa vet\u00eb gjyqtari \u201ckishte fshehur faktin se e p\u00ebrdorte k\u00ebt\u00eb apartament\u201d.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Zbardhja e vendimit t\u00eb KPK-s\u00eb p\u00ebr konfirmimin n\u00eb detyr\u00eb t\u00eb kreut e Gjykat\u00ebs Kushtetuese Bashkim Dedja tregon se brenda Komisionit t\u00eb Pavarur t\u00eb Kualifikimit ka dy arsyetime t\u00eb ndryshme p\u00ebr sa i p\u00ebrket m\u00ebnyr\u00ebs se si do t\u00eb cil\u00ebsohen pasurit\u00eb e t\u00eb af\u00ebrmve t\u00eb subjekteve t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit t\u00eb fituara n\u00eb emigracion.\u00a0<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":97,"featured_media":69539,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[13,5],"tags":[],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/www.reporter.al\/wp-content\/uploads\/20170725_234537_240717123-2_1PqlZKK-485x400.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50614"}],"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=50614"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50614\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":61937,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/50614\/revisions\/61937"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/69539"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=50614"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=50614"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=50614"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}