{"id":63352,"date":"2019-10-23T11:00:46","date_gmt":"2019-10-23T11:00:46","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.reporter.al\/vetingu\/?p=63352"},"modified":"2019-10-31T11:26:58","modified_gmt":"2019-10-31T11:26:58","slug":"konfliktet-e-interesit-rrezuan-mbrojtjen-e-artan-brocit-ne-kpa","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/konfliktet-e-interesit-rrezuan-mbrojtjen-e-artan-brocit-ne-kpa\/2019\/10\/23\/","title":{"rendered":"Konfliktet e interesit rr\u00ebzuan mbrojtjen e Artan Brocit n\u00eb KPA"},"content":{"rendered":"

Kolegji i Posa\u00e7\u00ebm i Apelimit gjeti parregullsi dhe konkluzione t\u00eb gabuara n\u00eb vendimin e KPK-s\u00eb p\u00ebr shkarkimin e ish-an\u00ebtarit t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb, Artan Broci, por la n\u00eb fuqi vendimin duke i cil\u00ebsuar k\u00ebto si \u201cjo-relevante\u201d, nd\u00ebrsa u fokusua te 3 raste konflikti interesi dhe problemet me pasurin\u00eb.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Artan Broci pas seanc\u00ebs d\u00ebgjimore t\u00eb Komisionit t\u00eb Pavarur t\u00eb Kualifikimeve n\u00eb Tiran\u00eb m\u00eb 27 korrik 2017. Foto: BIRN<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Kolegji i Posa\u00e7\u00ebm i Apelimit e gjeti t\u00eb drejt\u00eb vendimin e shkarkimit t\u00eb ish-an\u00ebtarit t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb, Artan Broci, por konstatoi gjithashtu parregullsi dhe q\u00ebndrime t\u00eb ndryshme p\u00ebr t\u00eb nj\u00ebjtin problem n\u00eb vendimin e shumic\u00ebs s\u00eb Komisionit t\u00eb Pavarur t\u00eb Kualifikimit.<\/p>\n

N\u00eb vendimin e zbardhur t\u00eb KPA-s\u00eb pranohet se shumica n\u00eb shkall\u00ebn e par\u00eb t\u00eb vetingut kishte analizuar mosp\u00ebrputhjet n\u00eb sip\u00ebrfaqet e nd\u00ebrtimit p\u00ebr nj\u00eb apartament 143 metra katror\u00eb n\u00eb m\u00ebnyr\u00eb t\u00eb ndryshme nga ajo q\u00eb ishte aplikuar p\u00ebr subjekte t\u00eb tjera.<\/p>\n

\u201cAnalizimi i mosp\u00ebrputhjeve n\u00eb sip\u00ebrfaqe nd\u00ebrtimi nga i nj\u00ebjti trup gjykues, p\u00ebr subjekte t\u00eb ndryshme n\u00eb m\u00ebnyra te ndryshme, duhet t\u00eb analizohet dhe argumentohet n\u00eb m\u00ebnyr\u00eb t\u00eb paanshme dhe mbi baz\u00ebn e t\u00eb nj\u00ebjtave parime dhe standarde,\u201d thuhet n\u00eb nj\u00eb paragraf t\u00eb vendimit t\u00eb zbardhur.<\/p>\n

Nd\u00ebrsa u t\u00ebrheq v\u00ebmendjen trupave t\u00eb KPK-s\u00eb q\u00eb t\u00eb tregohen t\u00eb paansh\u00ebm, vendimi i Kolegjit del gjithsesi n\u00eb p\u00ebrfundimin se ankimi i subjektit nuk e b\u00ebn t\u00eb c\u00ebnuesh\u00ebm vendimin e shkarkimit -pasi merr n\u00eb konsiderat\u00eb nj\u00eb s\u00ebr\u00eb problemesh q\u00eb iu v\u00ebrtetuan Brocit dhe q\u00eb sipas Kolegjit ishin t\u00eb mjaftueshme p\u00ebr ta shkarkuar at\u00eb.<\/p>\n

Ish-an\u00ebtari i Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb, Artan Broci u shkarkua me shumic\u00eb votash nga KPK m\u00eb 31 korrik t\u00eb vitit q\u00eb shkoi. Dy an\u00ebtaret e trup\u00ebs, Valbona Sanxhaktari dhe Etleda \u00c7iftja argumentuan se gjyqtari Artan Broci \u201cnuk ka arritur nj\u00eb nivel t\u00eb besuesh\u00ebm n\u00eb vler\u00ebsimin e pasuris\u00eb\u201d dhe se \u201ckishte c\u00ebnuar besimin e publikut te drejt\u00ebsia\u201d p\u00ebr shkak t\u00eb konfliktit t\u00eb interesit.<\/p>\n

An\u00ebtarja e tret\u00eb e trup\u00ebs, Xhensila Pine ishte n\u00eb pakic\u00eb n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb rast dhe arsyetoi se Broci nuk ndodhej n\u00eb asnj\u00eb nga rastet e parashikuara n\u00eb nenin 61 t\u00eb ligjit 84\/2016 p\u00ebr shkarkimin nga detyra. Pine ka argumentuar se gjyqtari Broci ka arritur t\u00eb shpjegoj\u00eb bindsh\u00ebm burimin e pasuris\u00eb s\u00eb tij dhe se nuk kishte qen\u00eb n\u00eb konflikt interesi.<\/p>\n

Trupa e Kolegjit e p\u00ebrb\u00ebr\u00eb nga Ina Rama kryesuese, Ardian Hajdari relator dhe me an\u00ebtar\u00eb \u00a0Albana Shtyll\u00ebn, Luan Dacin dhe Sokol \u00c7omon vendosi m\u00eb 19 korrik 2019 n\u00eb dhom\u00eb k\u00ebshillimi t\u00eb l\u00ebr\u00eb n\u00eb fuqi vendimin p\u00ebr shkarkimin e Brocit, duke e cil\u00ebsuar t\u00eb pabazuar pjes\u00ebn kryesore t\u00eb ankimit t\u00eb tij dhe konfirmuar q\u00ebndrimin e KPK-s\u00eb mbi konfliktin e interesit.<\/p>\n

Problemet e pasuris\u00eb dhe konflikti i interesit<\/strong><\/p>\n

Kolegji gjeti t\u00eb drejta argumentet e Komisionit mbi problemet e Brocit n\u00eb disa pasuri dhe tre raste t\u00eb konfliktit t\u00eb interesit, q\u00eb soll\u00ebn shkarkimin e tij. P\u00ebrsa i p\u00ebrket nj\u00eb apartamenti 157,99 m2, Kolegji thot\u00eb se\u00a0 q\u00ebndrimi i shumic\u00ebs n\u00eb KPK ishte i drejt\u00eb dhe se kishte paqart\u00ebsi n\u00eb m\u00ebnyr\u00ebn e pages\u00ebs s\u00eb k\u00ebsaj pasurie. Po ashtu, KPA cil\u00ebsoi t\u00eb drejt\u00eb mosmarrjen n\u00eb konsiderat\u00eb t\u00eb q\u00ebndrimeve t\u00eb Brocit, duke iu referuar si prova n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb rast vet\u00ebm deklaratave noteriale.<\/p>\n

Kolegji argumentoi gjithashtu nj\u00ebsoj si Komisioni se Broci ishte n\u00eb konflikt interesi n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb rast. Sipas Kolegjit, fakti q\u00eb ai nuk kishte dh\u00ebn\u00eb dor\u00ebheqjen nga nj\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtje n\u00eb t\u00eb cil\u00ebn ishte pal\u00eb edhe shit\u00ebsi i apartamentit sillte \u201cc\u00ebnim t\u00eb besimit t\u00eb publikut te drejt\u00ebsia\u201d. \u201cSubjekti nuk duhej t\u00eb merrte pjes\u00eb n\u00eb vendimmarrjen p\u00ebrkat\u00ebse, ku pal\u00eb nd\u00ebrgjyq\u00ebse ishte nj\u00eb shtetas me t\u00eb cilin ka pasur apo vazhdon t\u00eb ket\u00eb marr\u00ebdh\u00ebnie preferenciale,\u201d thuhet n\u00eb arsyetim.<\/p>\n

Ngjashm\u00ebrisht, KPA e gjeti Brocin me probleme p\u00ebr nj\u00eb sht\u00ebpi t\u00eb bler\u00eb n\u00eb vitin 2006 n\u00eb Durr\u00ebs me sip\u00ebrfaqe 147,99 m2 (papafingo). P\u00ebr k\u00ebt\u00eb pasuri, Kolegji duke marr\u00eb t\u00eb mir\u00ebqena pretendimet e Brocit mbi t\u00eb ardhurat nga qirat\u00eb arriti fillimisht n\u00eb p\u00ebrfundimin se ai nuk kishte pasur burime t\u00eb ligjshme p\u00ebr t\u00eb kryer pagesat.<\/p>\n

\u201cN\u00eb situat\u00ebn m\u00eb t\u00eb mir\u00eb p\u00ebr subjektin, do t\u00eb rezultonte p\u00ebrfundimisht balanca negative prej 229.502,36 lek\u00ebsh\u201d, thuhet n\u00eb vendim. KPA shprehet se duke u bazuar vet\u00ebm t\u00eb t\u00eb ardhurat e konsideruara t\u00eb ligjshme, bilanci negativ ishte 866 mij\u00eb lek\u00eb.<\/p>\n

KPA rr\u00ebzoi po ashtu pretendimin se hetimi p\u00ebr k\u00ebt\u00eb sht\u00ebpi kishte qen\u00eb i pamjaftuesh\u00ebm, nd\u00ebrsa pranoi gjetjet e Komisionit se \u201csubjekti p\u00ebr k\u00ebt\u00eb pasuri ka b\u00ebr\u00eb deklarim t\u00eb rrem\u00eb\u201d n\u00eb lidhje me \u00e7mimin duke mos deklaruar faktin q\u00eb i ishte ulur 10 p\u00ebr qind e tij nga nd\u00ebrtuesi.<\/p>\n

Situata e Brocit n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb pik\u00eb u r\u00ebndua edhe nga pjes\u00ebmarrja e tij n\u00eb gjykimin e nj\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtje me pal\u00eb kompanin\u00eb ku kishte bler\u00eb apartamentin. Broci pretendoi se gjykimi ishte b\u00ebr\u00eb 7 vjet pasi ai kishte mbyllur marr\u00ebveshjen me Kompanin\u00eb, por KPA e kund\u00ebrshtoi k\u00ebt\u00eb duke arsyetuar se marr\u00ebdh\u00ebniet me kompanin\u00eb dhe ortak\u00ebt e saj kishin vijuar.<\/p>\n

\u201cDuke konsideruar t\u00eb gjitha k\u00ebto veprime juridike q\u00eb n\u00eb filles\u00ebn e tyre, t\u00eb afektuara me munges\u00eb t\u00eb burimeve t\u00eb ligjshme, me mosprovim t\u00eb pagimit t\u00eb \u00e7mimit t\u00eb blerjes s\u00eb apartamentit, me deklarime t\u00eb rreme p\u00ebr vler\u00ebn e k\u00ebtij \u00e7mimi, e m\u00eb pas me mosprovimin e p\u00ebrfitimit t\u00eb \u00e7mimit t\u00eb shitjes, me kryerjen e veprimeve juridike t\u00eb pashpjegueshme n\u00eb nj\u00eb kontekst logjik e ligjor t\u00eb qarkullimit civil t\u00eb sendeve, me veprime q\u00eb kan\u00eb pasur p\u00ebr q\u00ebllim shmangien nga pagimi i detyrimeve tatimore, t\u00eb realizuara me bashk\u00ebpunimin e nj\u00eb shoq\u00ebrie me t\u00eb cil\u00ebn subjekti gjendej n\u00eb kushtet e konfliktit t\u00eb interesit, e \u00e7ojn\u00eb Kolegjin n\u00eb konkluzionin se subjekti nuk arriti t\u00eb provoj\u00eb se shuma e parave prej 102.000 eurosh, t\u00eb p\u00ebrfituara n\u00eb finalizimin e k\u00ebtij transaksioni e t\u00eb investuara n\u00eb bonot e thesarit, ishte krijuar me burime t\u00eb ligjshme,\u201d thuhet n\u00eb vendim.<\/p>\n

KPA gjeti t\u00eb provuar edhe nj\u00eb rast t\u00eb tret\u00eb konflikti interesi. Broci sipas Kolegjit nuk kishte dh\u00ebn\u00eb dor\u00ebheqjen nga nj\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtje n\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebn e Lart\u00eb edhe pse e kishte gjykuar at\u00eb m\u00eb her\u00ebt n\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebn e Faktit. Pretendimet e ish-gjyqtarit se nuk kishte pasur dijeni p\u00ebr konfliktin pasi ankuesi nuk kishte b\u00ebr\u00eb k\u00ebrkes\u00eb p\u00ebr k\u00ebt\u00eb, u rr\u00ebzuan nga Kolegji.<\/p>\n

KPA po ashtu vuri n\u00eb dukje edhe probleme t\u00eb tjera t\u00eb pasurive t\u00eb Brocit, p\u00ebrfshi munges\u00eb t\u00eb ardhurash t\u00eb lishme p\u00ebr blerjen e nj\u00eb zyr\u00eb dhe munges\u00eb provash p\u00ebr t\u00eb ardhurat nga qiraja.<\/p>\n

Kritika p\u00ebr KPK-n\u00eb<\/strong><\/p>\n

Kolegji n\u00eb an\u00ebn tjet\u00ebr i dha t\u00eb drejt\u00eb Brocit n\u00eb disa pika t\u00eb ankimit. KPA pranoi se vler\u00ebsimi i shumic\u00ebs n\u00eb KPK sa i p\u00ebrket pasakt\u00ebsive n\u00eb sip\u00ebrfaqe t\u00eb pasuris\u00eb 143 metra katror\u00eb n\u00eb Tiran\u00eb ishte i gabuar dhe po ashtu n\u00eb t\u00eb nj\u00ebjt\u00ebn koh\u00eb, pranoi pretendimin e Brocit se nj\u00ebjta trup\u00eb kishte mbajtur q\u00ebndrime t\u00eb ndryshme n\u00eb raste t\u00eb ngjashme.<\/p>\n

KPA thekson n\u00eb vendim nevoj\u00ebn p\u00ebr paan\u00ebsi t\u00eb institucioneve t\u00eb vetingut.<\/p>\n

\u201cDetyrimin q\u00eb kan\u00eb institucionet e rivler\u00ebsimit q\u00eb t\u00eb ushtrojn\u00eb funksionet e tyre si institucione t\u00eb pavarura dhe t\u00eb paanshme, mbi baz\u00ebn e parimeve t\u00eb barazis\u00eb p\u00ebrpara ligjit, t\u00eb kushtetutshm\u00ebris\u00eb e ligjshm\u00ebris\u00eb, t\u00eb proporcionalitetit dhe t\u00eb parimeve t\u00eb tjera q\u00eb garantojn\u00eb t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn e subjekteve t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit p\u00ebr nj\u00eb proces t\u00eb rregullt ligjor,\u201d citohet n\u00eb vendim ligji 84\/2016.<\/p>\n

Por duke v\u00ebn\u00eb n\u00eb dukje mund\u00ebsin\u00eb e ankimit dhe faktin q\u00eb KPA kishte mund\u00ebsi t\u00eb korrigjonte vendimin e Komisionit, KPA arsyetoi se kjo nuk e c\u00ebnonte vendimin. \u201cSa m\u00eb sip\u00ebr, ky shkak ankimi \u00ebsht\u00eb i arsyesh\u00ebm, por nuk e b\u00ebn t\u00eb cenuesh\u00ebm vendimin\u201d, thuhet n\u00eb vendim.<\/p>\n

KPA shprehet se vet\u00ebm q\u00ebndrimi i ndrysh\u00ebm n\u00eb raport me precedent\u00ebt e vendosur nga Kolegji e b\u00ebnte vendimmarrjen t\u00eb c\u00ebnueshme.<\/p>\n

\u201cE kund\u00ebrta e asaj q\u00eb pretendon subjekti do t\u00eb ishte problem, pra n\u00ebse nj\u00eb standard t\u00eb mbajtur m\u00eb par\u00eb nga Kolegji, n\u00ebp\u00ebrmjet nj\u00eb arsyetimi t\u00eb nj\u00eb vendimi ku ka korrigjuar shkeljet procedurale dhe orientuar Komisionin p\u00ebr zgjidhjen e \u00e7\u00ebshtjeve t\u00eb ngjashme, Komisioni nuk e ka zbatuar, at\u00ebher\u00eb kjo do t\u00eb mund t\u00eb p\u00ebrb\u00ebnte shkak p\u00ebr cenimin e vendimit t\u00eb Komisionit\u201d, thuhet n\u00eb vendimin e zbardhur.<\/p>\n

Kolegji nga ana tjet\u00ebr v\u00eb n\u00eb dukje se p\u00ebrtej k\u00ebtij momenti, Broci nuk ishte paragjykuar. \u201cDuke u kthyer te rasti n\u00eb gjykim, trupi gjykues konstaton se subjekti nuk ka qen\u00eb i paragjykuar n\u00eb Komision dhe nuk rezulton t\u00eb provohet nj\u00eb sjellje diskriminuese apo dualiste\u201d, thuhet n\u00eb vendim.<\/p>\n

KPA gjeti t\u00eb paprovuar edhe arsyetimin e shumic\u00ebs se Broci kishte pasuri t\u00eb fshehur nj\u00eb apartament.\u00a0 \u201cP\u00ebrve\u00e7 pretendimit p\u00ebr hetim t\u00eb nj\u00ebansh\u00ebm dhe tendencioz n\u00eb Komision, trupi gjykues e gjen t\u00eb drejt\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb shkak ankimi t\u00eb subjektit, pasi rezulton se nga Komisioni nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb b\u00ebr\u00eb nj\u00eb hetim i thelluar dhe i plot\u00eb p\u00ebr t\u00eb arritur n\u00eb nj\u00eb konkluzion t\u00eb drejt\u00eb dhe t\u00eb bazuar n\u00eb prova\u201d, thuhet n\u00eb vendim.<\/p>\n

Duke iu referuar vendimit t\u00eb KPK-s\u00eb, Kolegji n\u00eb rastet e evidentimit t\u00eb konfliktit t\u00eb interesit k\u00ebrkoi q\u00eb Komisioni t\u00eb \u201creferohej parimeve t\u00eb Konvent\u00ebs Evropiane t\u00eb t\u00eb Drejtave t\u00eb Njeriut, jurisprudenc\u00ebs s\u00eb GjEDNj, baz\u00ebs ligjore n\u00eb legjislacionin ton\u00eb t\u00eb brendsh\u00ebm, Kodit t\u00eb Procedur\u00ebs Civile, p\u00ebr t\u00eb p\u00ebrforcuar konkluzionet mbi gjendjet faktike dhe ligjore t\u00eb situatave t\u00eb konfliktit t\u00eb interesave\u201d.<\/p>\n

Nd\u00ebrkoh\u00eb, Kolegji i cil\u00ebsoi jo relevante ankimet e ish-gjyqtarit sa i p\u00ebrket vler\u00ebsimit t\u00eb aft\u00ebsive profesionale, duke u shprehur se ato nuk ishin konsideruar shkarkuese nga Komisioni.<\/p>\n

Ankimi mbi procedur\u00ebn<\/strong><\/p>\n

N\u00eb vendimin e zbardhur rezulton se Broci ishte ankuar p\u00ebr konflikt t\u00eb mundsh\u00ebm interesi t\u00eb dy an\u00ebtar\u00ebve t\u00eb KPK q\u00eb votuan p\u00ebr shkarkimin e tij. Ish-gjyqtari pretendon se kishte r\u00ebn\u00eb n\u00eb dijeni t\u00eb k\u00ebtij konflikti vet\u00ebm pasi ishte marr\u00eb vendimi nga Komisioni. Ai pretendon se p\u00ebr k\u00ebt\u00eb arsye vendimi i KPK ishte \u201chakmarrje primitive\u201d.<\/p>\n

Kolegji ka rr\u00ebzuar k\u00ebto pretendime si t\u00eb pabazuara n\u00eb ligj. Kolegji i \u00ebsht\u00eb referuar faktit se ish-bashk\u00ebshorti i komisioneres Sanxhaktari nuk futej n\u00eb kategorin\u00eb e personave q\u00eb mund t\u00eb merreshin n\u00eb konsiderat\u00eb p\u00ebr konfliktin e interesit. Nd\u00ebrsa rr\u00ebzon si krejt\u00ebsisht t\u00eb paprovuar pretendimin p\u00ebr konfliktin me komisioneren \u00c7iftja.<\/p>\n

Nga ana tjet\u00ebr \u00ebsht\u00eb gjetur i drejt\u00eb pretendimi i Brocit se relatoja Valbona Sanxhaktari kishte refuzuar n\u00eb m\u00ebnyr\u00eb t\u00eb parregullt ta njihte me hetimin administrativ, pa marr\u00eb mendimin e dy an\u00ebtar\u00ebve t\u00eb tjer\u00eb t\u00eb trup\u00ebs.<\/p>\n

Por KPA n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb rast rr\u00ebzoi Brocin q\u00eb pretendonte se kjo c\u00ebnonte vendimin, pasi ishim para nj\u00eb akti \u201cabsolutisht t\u00eb pavlefsh\u00ebm\u201d. \u201cN\u00eb vler\u00ebsimin e trupit gjykues, edhe pse ky akt i dat\u00ebs 04.04.2018 rezulton i parregullt n\u00eb kuptimin formal, nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb vendim i nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebm, por gjithashtu nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb as akt absolutisht i pavlefsh\u00ebm, si\u00e7 pretendon subjekti n\u00eb ankim dhe, p\u00ebr pasoj\u00eb, nuk afekton edhe vendimin p\u00ebrfundimtar t\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtjes objekt shqyrtimi,\u201d thuhet n\u00eb vendim.<\/p>\n

N\u00eb t\u00ebr\u00ebsi Kolegji rr\u00ebzoi pretendimet e ish-gjyqtarit se \u201cnuk \u00ebsht\u00eb gjykuar nga nj\u00eb gjykat\u00eb e paanshme\u201d. KPA shprehet se \u201cnuk konstatoi nj\u00ebanshm\u00ebri t\u00eb Komisionit n\u00eb vendimmarrjen e tij p\u00ebrfundimtare\u201d dhe as shkelje t\u00eb \u201cstandardeve t\u00eb procesit t\u00eb rregullt ligjor n\u00eb Komision\u201d.<\/p>\n

Nisur nga k\u00ebto KPA rr\u00ebzoi pretendimet e Brocit p\u00ebr t\u00eb kaluar \u00e7\u00ebshtjen n\u00eb seanc\u00eb publike. Kolegji po ashtu refuzoi t\u00eb marr\u00eb prova t\u00eb reja nga gjyqtari duke konsideruar se ai kishte pasur mund\u00ebsi t\u2019i paraqiste ato n\u00eb KPK dhe se ato nuk ishin t\u00eb r\u00ebnd\u00ebsishme p\u00ebr vendimmarrjen. Ngjash\u00ebm, KPA refuzoi t\u00eb marr\u00eb n\u00eb konsiderat\u00eb edhe disa denoncime shtes\u00eb ndaj gjyqtarit.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Kolegji i Posa\u00e7\u00ebm i Apelimit gjeti parregullsi dhe konkluzione t\u00eb gabuara n\u00eb vendimin e KPK-s\u00eb p\u00ebr shkarkimin e ish-an\u00ebtarit t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb, Artan Broci, por la n\u00eb fuqi vendimin duke i cil\u00ebsuar k\u00ebto si \u201cjo-relevante\u201d, nd\u00ebrsa u fokusua te 3 raste konflikti interesi dhe problemet me pasurin\u00eb.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":97,"featured_media":63354,"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\/Artan-Broci-600x338.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"Konfliktet e interesit rr\u00ebzuan mbrojtjen e Artan Brocit n\u00eb KPA","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/63352"}],"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=63352"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/63352\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":63390,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/63352\/revisions\/63390"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/63354"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=63352"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=63352"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=63352"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}