{"id":65049,"date":"2021-04-09T20:28:27","date_gmt":"2021-04-09T18:28:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.reporter.al\/vetingu\/?p=65049"},"modified":"2021-04-09T20:28:27","modified_gmt":"2021-04-09T18:28:27","slug":"kpa-rrezoi-pretendimet-e-elona-kanes-per-boshllek-ligjor","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/kpa-rrezoi-pretendimet-e-elona-kanes-per-boshllek-ligjor\/2021\/04\/09\/","title":{"rendered":"KPA rr\u00ebzoi pretendimet e Elona Kan\u00ebs p\u00ebr \u201cboshll\u00ebk ligjor\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"

Kolegji i Posa\u00e7\u00ebm i Apelimit i ka rr\u00ebzuar t\u00eb gjitha shkaqet e ankimit t\u00eb ish-k\u00ebshilltares ligjore n\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebn e Lart\u00eb, Elona Kana, e cila pretendoi se Komisioni nuk mund t\u00eb merrte vendim n\u00eb rastin e saj.<\/p>\n

\"\"
K\u00ebshilltarja e Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb, Elona Kana pas seanc\u00ebs d\u00ebgjimore n\u00eb KPK. Foto: Edmond Hoxhaj.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Kolegji i Posa\u00e7\u00ebm i Apelimit, KPA i ka rr\u00ebzuar si t\u00eb pabazuar pretendimet e ish-k\u00ebshilltares ligjore pran\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb, Elona Kana, p\u00ebr t\u00eb cil\u00ebn Komisioni vendosi m\u00eb 3 shkurt 2020 t\u00eb nd\u00ebrpres\u00eb procesin e rivler\u00ebsimit dhe i hoqi t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn p\u00ebr t\u2019u em\u00ebruar n\u00eb institucionet e drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb p\u00ebr nj\u00eb periudh\u00eb 15-vje\u00e7are.<\/p>\n

Kana pretendonte n\u00eb ankim se ishte larguar nga Shkolla e Magjistratur\u00ebs dhe nuk kishte dh\u00ebn\u00eb dor\u00ebheqje sipas nenit G t\u00eb Kushtetut\u00ebs. Sipas saj p\u00ebr k\u00ebt\u00eb rast kishte boshll\u00ebk ligjor\u00eb dhe KPK nuk do duhej t\u00eb dilte me vendim.<\/p>\n

Trupi gjykues i KPA, i kryesuar nga Ina Rama, me relatore Rezarta Schuetz dhe an\u00ebtar\u00eb Albana Shtylla, Natasha Mulaj dhe Ardian Hajdari, i kujton Kan\u00ebs n\u00eb vendimin e zbardhur se vendi n\u00eb Shkoll\u00ebn e Magjistratur\u00ebs e kishte marr\u00eb si k\u00ebshilltare ligjore e Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb.<\/p>\n

P\u00ebrkund\u00ebr pretendimit t\u00eb saj se kishte boshll\u00ebk, ishte parashikuar shprehimisht n\u00eb ligj se p\u00ebr k\u00ebshilltar\u00ebt q\u00eb nuk e kalonin procesin, nd\u00ebrpritej edhe mund\u00ebsia e vijimit t\u00eb Shkoll\u00ebs s\u00eb Magjistratur\u00ebs.<\/p>\n

Elona Kana, n\u00eb momentin e hyrjes n\u00eb fuqi t\u00eb ligjit p\u00ebr rivler\u00ebsimin e gjyqtar\u00ebve dhe prokuror\u00ebve ka ushtruar detyr\u00ebn e k\u00ebshilltares ligjore n\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebn e Lart\u00eb.<\/p>\n

N\u00eb maj t\u00eb 2018-\u00ebs, ajo iu n\u00ebnshtrua testimit p\u00ebr vler\u00ebsimin e aft\u00ebsive profesionale p\u00ebr subjektet e rivler\u00ebsimit ex officio, t\u00eb zhvilluar nga Shkolla e Magjistratur\u00ebs. Pas kalimit me sukses t\u00eb testimit, Kana zgjodhi t\u00eb ndjek\u00eb programin e formimit fillestar n\u00eb Shkoll\u00ebn e Magjistratur\u00ebs, n\u00eb profilin \u201cgjyqtar\u201d.<\/p>\n

Pasi Komisioni i Pavarur i Kualifikimit, KPK vendosi p\u00ebrfundimin e hetimit administrativ p\u00ebr t\u00eb tria kriteret e vler\u00ebsimit p\u00ebr Kan\u00ebn, e ftoi at\u00eb n\u00eb seanc\u00eb d\u00ebgjimore.<\/p>\n

N\u00eb seanc\u00ebn d\u00ebgjimore t\u00eb zhvilluar m\u00eb 2 tetor 2019, Elona Kana k\u00ebrkoi p\u00ebrjashtimin e relatores s\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtjes, Xhensila Pine, k\u00ebrkes\u00eb q\u00eb u rr\u00ebzua si e pabazuar n\u00eb ligj e prova nga nj\u00eb trup\u00eb tjet\u00ebr gjyq\u00ebsore e KPK.<\/p>\n

Kana ngriti dyshime p\u00ebr ndikim politik t\u00eb Pines n\u00eb q\u00ebndrimin ndaj saj, duke u shprehur se relatorja e \u00e7\u00ebshtjes ishte zgjedhur nga Partia Demokratike. Ajo e lidhi ndikimin politik me funksionin e bashk\u00ebshortit t\u00eb saj, Denar Biba si n\u00ebnkryetar i Komisionit Qendror t\u00eb Zgjedhjeve. Gjithashtu, Kana e mb\u00ebshteti k\u00ebrkes\u00ebn edhe me ndjesin\u00eb e saj se nuk ishin marr\u00eb parasysh provat dhe dokumentet e dor\u00ebzuara n\u00eb lidhje me udh\u00ebtimet e pun\u00ebs, si dhe t\u00eb ardhurat.<\/p>\n

Pak dit\u00eb pas seanc\u00ebs d\u00ebgjimore, subjekti i rivler\u00ebsimit i paraqiti K\u00ebshillit Drejtues dhe Drejtorit t\u00eb Shkoll\u00ebs s\u00eb Magjistratur\u00ebs dor\u00ebheqjen me shkrim nga vazhdimi i m\u00ebtejsh\u00ebm i procesit akademik, duke v\u00ebn\u00eb n\u00eb dijeni edhe Komisionin p\u00ebr k\u00ebt\u00eb veprim t\u00eb sajin.<\/p>\n

KPK ri\u00e7eli hetimin p\u00ebr verifikimin e dor\u00ebheqjes duke e thirrur s\u00ebrish Kan\u00ebn n\u00eb seanc\u00eb d\u00ebgjimore m\u00eb 30 janar 2020, p\u00ebr t\u2019u d\u00ebgjuar. Pasi subjekti zgjodhi t\u00eb mos ishte e pranishme, Komisioni e zhvilloi seanc\u00ebn d\u00ebgjimore n\u00eb munges\u00eb t\u00eb saj dhe vendosi t\u00eb nd\u00ebrpres\u00eb procesin e rivler\u00ebsimit kalimtar dhe t\u2019i heqi t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn p\u00ebr em\u00ebrimin e saj n\u00eb pozicione t\u00eb caktuara n\u00eb institucionet e drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb p\u00ebr nj\u00eb periudh\u00eb 15-vje\u00e7are.<\/p>\n

N\u00eb ankim, Kana pretendon se vendimi i Komisionit \u00ebsht\u00eb i paligjsh\u00ebm dhe i paarsyetuar dhe se vjen n\u00eb kund\u00ebrshtim me parimet e p\u00ebrgjithshme t\u00eb t\u00eb drejtave dhe lirive t\u00eb parashikuara nga Kushtetuta dhe nga KEDNj-ja.<\/p>\n

Ajo e konsideron t\u00eb gabuar zbatimin n\u00eb rastin e saj, t\u00eb pik\u00ebs 2 t\u00eb nenit G t\u00eb Aneksit t\u00eb Kushtetut\u00ebs, q\u00eb parashikon sanksionin p\u00ebr ndalimin e em\u00ebrimit n\u00eb sistemin e drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb p\u00ebr nj\u00eb periudh\u00eb 15-vje\u00e7are, kur subjekti i rivler\u00ebsimit dor\u00ebhiqet.<\/p>\n

Subjekti i rivler\u00ebsimit, pretendon se Komisioni gjendej p\u00ebrpara nj\u00eb boshll\u00ebku ligjor dhe se ishte n\u00eb pamund\u00ebsi p\u00ebr t\u00eb dh\u00ebn\u00eb vendim p\u00ebrfundimtar, pasi n\u00eb momentin e dor\u00ebheqjes, ajo ka qen\u00eb studente e Shkoll\u00ebs s\u00eb Magjistratur\u00ebs dhe nuk g\u00ebzonte asnj\u00eb status tjet\u00ebr n\u00eb kuptim t\u00eb legjislacionit.<\/p>\n

Kana argumenton se nuk ka dh\u00ebn\u00eb dor\u00ebheqjen nga detyra e ndihm\u00ebses ligjore n\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebn e Lart\u00eb n\u00eb kuptim t\u00eb nenit G t\u00eb Aneksit t\u00eb Kushtetut\u00ebs, ku parashikohet sanksioni q\u00eb i heq subjektit t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn e em\u00ebrimit n\u00eb institucionet e drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb. Ajo thekson se \u00ebsht\u00eb larguar nga detyra n\u00eb zbatim t\u00eb nenit 165 t\u00eb ligjit nr. 96\/2016 \u201cP\u00ebr statusin e gjyqtar\u00ebve dhe prokuror\u00ebve n\u00eb Republik\u00ebn e Shqip\u00ebris\u00eb\u201d, ku parashikohen dispozitat kalimtare p\u00ebr ndihm\u00ebsit ligjor\u00eb.<\/p>\n

Kana pretendon se, n\u00eb rastin e saj, as Kushtetuta dhe as legjislacioni nuk ka parashikuar se \u00e7far\u00eb vendimi do t\u00eb duhet t\u00eb marrin institucionet e rivler\u00ebsimit p\u00ebr ndihm\u00ebsit ligjor\u00eb t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb, apo p\u00ebr subjekte t\u00eb tjera q\u00eb vazhdojn\u00eb Shkoll\u00ebn e Magjistratur\u00ebs, kur dor\u00ebheqjen nga detyra p\u00ebr shkak t\u00eb s\u00eb cil\u00ebs u b\u00ebn\u00eb subjekte rivler\u00ebsimit. Sipas saj, Komisioni e kishte t\u00eb pamundur p\u00ebr t\u00eb dh\u00ebn\u00eb vendim pasi ajo nuk g\u00ebzonte asnj\u00eb status pas dor\u00ebheqjes s\u00eb dh\u00ebn\u00eb.<\/p>\n

Pasi analizon procedur\u00ebn e ndjekur n\u00eb Komsion p\u00ebr rivler\u00ebsimin e Kan\u00ebs, Kolegji sjell n\u00eb v\u00ebmendje se ndihm\u00ebsit ligjor\u00eb t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb p\u00ebrfshihen n\u00eb kategorin\u00eb e subjekteve q\u00eb i n\u00ebnshtrohen procesit t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit ex officio, n\u00eb vijim t\u00eb parashikimeve kushtetutese dhe ligjore, ashtu si gjyqtar\u00ebt dhe prokuror\u00ebt.<\/p>\n

\u201cN\u00eb m\u00ebnyr\u00eb t\u00eb shprehur, ligjv\u00ebn\u00ebsi i ka kategorizuar ndihm\u00ebsit ligjor\u00eb t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb si subjekte t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit\u201d, v\u00ebren Kolegji.<\/p>\n

Trupi gjykues i KPA, argumenton se subjektet e rivler\u00ebsimit ex officio, nd\u00ebr t\u00eb cilat edhe Kana, p\u00ebrfituan leht\u00ebsira ligjore p\u00ebr t\u00eb ndjekur programin e trajnimit dyvje\u00e7ar n\u00eb Shkoll\u00ebn e Magjistratur\u00ebs.<\/p>\n

Ndryshe nga procedura e zakonshme e programit trevje\u00e7ar q\u00eb ndjek Shkolla e Magjistratur\u00ebs p\u00ebr student\u00ebt q\u00eb vijn\u00eb nga jasht\u00eb sistemit, p\u00ebr k\u00ebshilltar\u00ebt dhe ndihm\u00ebsit ligjor\u00eb \u00ebsht\u00eb p\u00ebrcaktuar t\u00eb jet\u00eb dy vjet. K\u00ebto subjekte rivler\u00ebsimi, nuk p\u00ebrfitojn\u00eb burs\u00eb sikurse ndodh n\u00eb rekrutimet e zakonshme, por marrin pag\u00eb barabart\u00eb me at\u00eb t\u00eb pozicionit t\u00eb tyre respektiv.<\/p>\n

\u201cLigji nr. 96\/2016, n\u00eb nenin 165 nuk parashikon humbjen e cil\u00ebsis\u00eb s\u00eb subjektit t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit ex officio p\u00ebr shkak t\u00eb ndjekjes s\u00eb programit t\u00eb formimit profesional n\u00eb Shkoll\u00ebn e Magjistratur\u00ebs, p\u00ebrkundrazi. Gjuha dhe fryma e dispozitave q\u00eb rregullojn\u00eb procesin e rivler\u00ebsimit, dhe sidomos neni 165, pika 8 e ligjit nr. 96\/2016, p\u00ebrcaktojn\u00eb q\u00eb moskalimi me sukses i procesit t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit p\u00ebrb\u00ebn shkak p\u00ebr nd\u00ebrprerjen e programit akademik n\u00eb Shkoll\u00ebn e Magjistratur\u00ebs\u201d, evidentohet n\u00eb vendim.<\/p>\n

Trupi gjykues v\u00ebren se, p\u00ebrkund\u00ebr nga \u00e7far\u00eb pretendon Kana, gjat\u00eb procesit t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit nuk ka paraqitur n\u00eb asnj\u00eb moment k\u00ebrkes\u00eb ku t\u00eb parashtroj\u00eb pretendimin se nuk duhej t\u2019i n\u00ebnshtrohej procesit t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit, pasi nuk p\u00ebrfshihej m\u00eb n\u00eb kategorin\u00eb e subjekteve t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit duke qen\u00eb se ishte studente pran\u00eb Shkoll\u00ebs s\u00eb Magjistratur\u00ebs.<\/p>\n

Kolegji konstaton se akti i dor\u00ebheqjes nga Kana para vitit t\u00eb dyt\u00eb t\u00eb programit t\u00eb formimit fillestar n\u00eb Shkoll\u00ebn e Magjistratur\u00ebs ka ndodhur pas nd\u00ebrprerjes s\u00eb seanc\u00ebs d\u00ebgjimore, q\u00eb \u00ebsht\u00eb nj\u00eb faz\u00eb q\u00eb i paraprin marrjes s\u00eb vendimit nga ana e Komisionit.<\/p>\n

\u201cN\u00eb rast se k\u00ebto subjekte vendosin t\u00eb mos i n\u00ebnshtrohen k\u00ebtij procesi, at\u00ebher\u00eb ata p\u00ebrjashtohen nga mund\u00ebsia e em\u00ebrimit n\u00eb disa prej organeve t\u00eb drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb, p\u00ebr nj\u00eb periudh\u00eb 15-vje\u00e7are, sipas p\u00ebrcaktimeve n\u00eb pik\u00ebn 2 t\u00eb nenit G t\u00eb Aneksit t\u00eb Kushtetut\u00ebs\u201d, konstaton Kolegji.<\/p>\n

KPA e quan t\u00eb pabazuar edhe pretendimin tjet\u00ebr t\u00eb Kan\u00ebs se, ndalimi p\u00ebr 15 vite c\u00ebnon t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn kushtetuese p\u00ebr pun\u00eb, si dhe \u00ebsht\u00eb n\u00eb kund\u00ebrshtim me parimin e proporcionalitetit pasi KPK ka vendosur mas\u00eb penalizuese t\u00eb nj\u00ebtrajtshme p\u00ebr cilindo subjekt kur nd\u00ebrpritet procesi i rivler\u00ebsimit, pa marr\u00eb parasysh specifikat rast pas rasti.<\/p>\n

Kana ankohet edhe mbi formulimin e nenit G t\u00eb Aneksit t\u00eb Kushtetut\u00ebs, duke pretenduar se bie ndesh me parimet e shtetit t\u00eb s\u00eb drejt\u00ebs pasi parashikon nj\u00eb d\u00ebnim fiks, shum\u00eb her\u00eb m\u00eb t\u00eb r\u00ebnd\u00eb se d\u00ebnimi penal dhe se n\u00eb m\u00ebnyr\u00eb jo proporcionale vendos trajtim t\u00eb barabart\u00eb p\u00ebr subjekte krejt\u00ebsisht t\u00eb pabarabarta.<\/p>\n

Kolegji thekson se kushtetutshm\u00ebria e parimeve mbi t\u00eb cilat \u00ebsht\u00eb bazuar procesi i rivler\u00ebsimit, nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb objekt diskutimi i k\u00ebsaj \u00e7\u00ebshtjeje. N\u00eb vijim, duke ju referuar edhe jurisprudenc\u00ebs s\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs Kushtetuese, trupi gjykues vler\u00ebson se parashikimi i nenit G t\u00eb Aneksit t\u00eb Kushtetut\u00ebs \u00ebsht\u00eb i qart\u00eb n\u00eb frym\u00ebn dhe gjuh\u00ebn e tij, ku parashikohet se dh\u00ebnia e dor\u00ebheqjes sjell nd\u00ebrprerjen e procesit t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit dhe sanksionon ndalimin prej 15 vitesh p\u00ebr t\u00eb kryer detyra t\u00eb caktuara n\u00eb sistemin e drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb.<\/p>\n

Trupi gjykues i KPA v\u00ebren se n\u00eb drit\u00ebn e q\u00ebllimit p\u00ebr t\u00eb cilin \u00ebsht\u00eb ngritur sistemi i rivler\u00ebsimit, ndalimi i ushtrimit t\u00eb detyrave n\u00eb sistemin e drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb p\u00ebr 15 vjet, nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb disproporcional, p\u00ebr sa koh\u00eb shteti legjitimohet t\u00eb sanksionoj\u00eb ndalime t\u00eb caktuara n\u00eb fusha t\u00eb caktuara t\u00eb funksioneve publike.<\/p>\n

N\u00eb vendim thuhet se pretendimi i subjektit bie ndesh edhe me kriteret e p\u00ebrcaktuara nga Gjykata Evropiane e t\u00eb Drejtave t\u00eb Njeriut, GjEDNj-ja dhe sillet n\u00eb v\u00ebmendje \u00e7\u00ebshtja \u201cNiadin kund\u00ebr Rumanis\u00eb\u201d.<\/p>\n

\u201cGjykata v\u00ebren se shteti nuk ka vendosur ndalime mbi pun\u00ebsimin e ardhsh\u00ebm t\u00eb k\u00ebrkuesit\u201d, citohet argumenti i GjEDNj n\u00eb vendimin e KPA.<\/p>\n

M\u00eb tej, trupi gjykues i Kolegjit v\u00ebren se nga ana e Komisionit rezulton t\u00eb jen\u00eb respektuar parimet e procesit t\u00eb rregullt ligjor, duke i dh\u00ebn\u00eb mund\u00ebsin\u00eb subjektit t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit p\u00ebr t\u00eb ushtruar t\u00eb drejtat bazuar n\u00eb parimin e kontradiktorialitetit, p\u00ebr t\u2019u d\u00ebgjuar dhe p\u00ebr t\u2019u mbrojtur, p\u00ebrpara marrjes s\u00eb vendimit.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Kolegji i Posa\u00e7\u00ebm i Apelimit i ka rr\u00ebzuar t\u00eb gjitha shkaqet e ankimit t\u00eb ish-k\u00ebshilltares ligjore n\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebn e Lart\u00eb, Elona Kana, e cila pretendoi se Komisioni nuk mund t\u00eb merrte vendim n\u00eb rastin e saj.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":637,"featured_media":65052,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[13],"tags":[],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/www.reporter.al\/wp-content\/uploads\/Capture-Elona-Kana-1-501x400.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"KPA rr\u00ebzoi pretendimet e Elona Kan\u00ebs p\u00ebr \u201cboshll\u00ebk ligjor\u201d","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65049"}],"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\/637"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=65049"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/65049\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/65052"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=65049"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=65049"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=65049"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}