{"id":71940,"date":"2022-02-11T12:48:28","date_gmt":"2022-02-11T11:48:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/isuf-shehu-nuk-arriti-te-kundershtoje-ne-kpa-balancat-negative\/2022\/02\/11\/"},"modified":"2023-04-06T16:56:39","modified_gmt":"2023-04-06T14:56:39","slug":"isuf-shehu-nuk-arriti-te-kundershtoje-ne-kpa-balancat-negative","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/isuf-shehu-nuk-arriti-te-kundershtoje-ne-kpa-balancat-negative\/2022\/02\/11\/","title":{"rendered":"Isuf Shehu nuk arriti t\u00eb kund\u00ebrshtoj\u00eb n\u00eb KPA balancat negative"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Kolegji i Posa\u00e7\u00ebm i Apelimit, KPA vendosi m\u00eb 15 n\u00ebntor 2021 t\u00eb l\u00ebr\u00eb n\u00eb fuqi vendimin e Komisionit t\u00eb Pavarur t\u00eb Kualifikimit, KPK p\u00ebr shkarkimin nga detyra t\u00eb ish-gjyqtarit t\u00eb Kuk\u00ebsit Isuf Shehu, pasi i gjeti t\u00eb pabazuara pjes\u00ebn m\u00eb t\u00eb madhe t\u00eb shkaqeve t\u00eb ankimit t\u00eb ngritura prej k\u00ebtij subjekti rivler\u00ebsimi &#8211; q\u00eb n\u00eb disa raste kishte kund\u00ebrshtuar edhe konstatimet e ILDKPKI-s\u00eb.<\/p>\n<p>Isuf Shehu u shkarkua nga detyra prej KPK-s\u00eb m\u00eb 14 n\u00ebntor 2019, pasi hetimi administrativ i p\u00ebrfunduar vet\u00ebm p\u00ebr kriterin e pasuris\u00eb evidentoi munges\u00eb burimesh t\u00eb ligjshme, si dhe deklarime t\u00eb pasakta e t\u00eb rreme. Ai nuk arriti t\u00eb bind\u00eb Komisionin se kishte mundur t\u00eb nd\u00ebrtonte me burime financiare t\u00eb ligjshme nj\u00eb banes\u00eb me tre kate + bodrum n\u00eb qytetin e Kuk\u00ebsit, si dhe u konstatuan balanca negative n\u00eb blerjen e dy autoveturave.<\/p>\n<p>Shehu e filloi karrier\u00ebn n\u00eb sistemin gjyq\u00ebsor n\u00eb vitin 1994 dhe gjat\u00eb dy dekadave t\u00eb fundit deri n\u00eb shkarkimin e tij nga detyra punoi n\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebn e Kuk\u00ebsit, ku prej vitit 2014 ishte em\u00ebruar si kryetar.<\/p>\n<p>Ve\u00e7 kund\u00ebrshtive p\u00ebr konkluzionet n\u00eb kriterin e pasuris\u00eb, ish-gjyqtari Shehu ka ngritur n\u00eb ankim dhe shkaqe procedurale, por q\u00eb jan\u00eb vler\u00ebsuar t\u00eb pabazuara.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Shkaqet p\u00ebr pasurin\u00eb<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>P\u00ebr pasurin\u00eb e paluajtshme \u201cnd\u00ebrtes\u00eb 3 kate + bodrum\u201d n\u00eb Kuk\u00ebs, Komisioni ka konkluduar se subjekti i rivler\u00ebsimit ka kryer deklarim t\u00eb pasakt\u00eb lidhur me koh\u00ebn e nd\u00ebrtimit, pasi nuk e ka deklaruar nd\u00ebrtimet e kryera vit pas viti, si dhe nuk ka deklaruar sakt\u00ebsisht p\u00ebrfundimin e objektit n\u00eb vitin 2005 \u2013 ashtu sikurse ka deklaruar n\u00eb formularin e vet\u00ebdeklarimit t\u00eb depozituar tek ALUIZNI.<\/p>\n<p>Po ashtu, KPK ka konkluduar se Shehu ka kryer deklarim t\u00eb rrem\u00eb t\u00eb vler\u00ebs reale t\u00eb shpenzuar p\u00ebr nd\u00ebrtimin e k\u00ebsaj pasurie, si dhe ka rezultuar balanc\u00eb negative n\u00eb shum\u00ebn 5.2 milion\u00eb lek\u00eb.<\/p>\n<p>Kolegji v\u00ebren se pretendimet e subjektit n\u00eb ankim lidhur me k\u00ebt\u00eb pasuri jan\u00eb t\u00eb nj\u00ebjta me ato \u00e7far\u00eb ai ka deklaruar para Komisionit, kur ka kund\u00ebrshtuar rezulatet e hetimit administrativ.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cKomisioni n\u00eb pjes\u00ebn arsyetuese t\u00eb vendimit, lidhur me vler\u00ebsimin e k\u00ebsaj pasurie n\u00eb pron\u00ebsi t\u00eb subjektit t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit, i ka dh\u00ebn\u00eb p\u00ebrgjigje t\u00eb gjitha pretendimeve t\u00eb tij dhe se, kund\u00ebrshtimet e subjektit n\u00eb Kolegj nuk sjellin asgj\u00eb t\u00eb re n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb drejtim\u201d, v\u00ebren Kolegji.<\/p>\n<p>KPA e \u00e7mon t\u00eb pabazuar pretendimin e subjektit se nuk mund t\u00eb ket\u00eb deklarim t\u00eb rrem\u00eb pasi ILDKPKI nuk ka nd\u00ebrmarr\u00eb ndonj\u00eb procedim administrativ apo t\u00eb ket\u00eb k\u00ebrkuar fillimin e ndonj\u00eb procedimi penal lidhur me deklarimin e pasurive. Kolegji thekson se procesi i vetingut t\u00eb magjistrat\u00ebve \u00ebsht\u00eb i ri dhe kryhet mbi baz\u00ebn e nj\u00eb kontrolli dhe vler\u00ebsimi t\u00eb mir\u00ebfillt\u00eb, duke mos u bazuar n\u00eb p\u00ebrfundimet e organeve q\u00eb kan\u00eb funksione ndihm\u00ebse dhe instrumentale, ku nj\u00eb nd\u00ebr to \u00ebsht\u00eb dhe ILDKPKI.<\/p>\n<p>Ashtu si KPK dhe Kolegji konkludon se vlera e nd\u00ebrtimit e deklaruar prej subjektit nuk mund t\u00eb jet\u00eb ajo reale, pasi preventivi i p\u00ebrgatitur nuk p\u00ebrfaq\u00ebson at\u00eb t\u00eb punimeve t\u00eb nd\u00ebrtes\u00ebs objekt kontrolli, por t\u00eb nj\u00eb objekti tjet\u00ebr n\u00eb kuptim t\u00eb projektit arkitekturor.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cP\u00ebr rrjedhoj\u00eb, edhe vlera e tij, e deklaruar nga subjekti i rivler\u00ebsimit n\u00eb deklarat\u00ebn e pasuris\u00eb vetting, jo vet\u00ebm q\u00eb nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb vlera e shpenzuar p\u00ebr nd\u00ebrtimin e k\u00ebtij objekti, por as q\u00eb p\u00ebrfaq\u00ebson nj\u00eb t\u00eb dh\u00ebn\u00eb relevante n\u00eb drejtim t\u00eb kostos s\u00eb nd\u00ebrtimit t\u00eb tij, n\u00eb kushtet kur m\u00eb s\u00eb paku volumet e punimeve jan\u00eb t\u00eb ndryshme\u201d, konstaton trupi gjykues.<\/p>\n<p>P\u00ebr shum\u00ebn 10.5 milion\u00eb lek\u00eb t\u00eb p\u00ebrcaktuar si vler\u00eb investimi n\u00eb \u201cFormularin e pages\u00ebs s\u00eb taks\u00ebs s\u00eb ndikimit n\u00eb infrastruktur\u00eb p\u00ebr objektet informale\u201d t\u00eb ALUIZNI-t, Kolegji vler\u00ebson se p\u00ebrllogaritja \u00ebsht\u00eb kryer sipas formul\u00ebs s\u00eb p\u00ebrcaktuar n\u00eb aktin n\u00ebnligjor, p\u00ebr efekt t\u00eb p\u00ebrcaktimit t\u00eb nivelit t\u00eb taks\u00ebs. P\u00ebr rrjedhoj\u00eb, trupi gjykues \u00e7mon se nuk mund t\u00eb merret si e dh\u00ebn\u00eb zyrtare q\u00eb provon vler\u00ebn e investimit t\u00eb kryer nga subjekti i rivler\u00ebsimit.<\/p>\n<p>Megjithat\u00eb, ndryshe nga KPK, Kolegji vler\u00ebson se n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb rast subjekti i rivler\u00ebsimit nuk ka deklaruar n\u00eb m\u00ebnyr\u00eb t\u00eb sakt\u00eb dhe t\u00eb plot\u00eb pasurin\u00eb, por pavar\u00ebsisht k\u00ebtyre konstatimeve, nuk mund t\u00eb arrihet n\u00eb konkluzionin se ka kryer deklarim t\u00eb rrem\u00eb t\u00eb vler\u00ebs s\u00eb investuar.<\/p>\n<p>\u201c\u2026Nevojitej t\u00eb kishte prov\u00eb t\u00eb vler\u00ebs s\u00eb shpenzuar, me q\u00ebllim krahasimin e k\u00ebsaj vlere me vler\u00ebn e deklaruar nga ana e subjektit\u201d, argumenton KPA dhe e \u00e7mon t\u00eb pabazuar konkluzionin e KPK p\u00ebr deklarim t\u00eb rrem\u00eb t\u00eb vler\u00ebs s\u00eb investuar.<\/p>\n<p>Lidhur me kund\u00ebrshtimin e subjektit se ai nuk ka kryer fshehje pasurie, Kolegji v\u00ebren se KPK nuk ka arritur n\u00eb nj\u00eb p\u00ebrfundim t\u00eb till\u00eb. \u201cMe sa kuptohet, subjekti n\u00eb ankimin e tij ka kund\u00ebrshtuar konstatimin e ILDKPKI-s\u00eb, t\u00eb referuar edhe n\u00eb vendimin e Komisionit, sipas t\u00eb cilit subjekti ka kryer fshehje t\u00eb banes\u00ebs 3 kate + bodrum n\u00eb Kuk\u00ebs n\u00eb deklaratat e interesave privat\u00eb nd\u00ebr vite, si dhe n\u00eb deklarat\u00ebn \u2018vetting\u2019\u201d, konstaton KPA dhe e \u00e7mon k\u00ebt\u00eb pretendim t\u00eb Shehut pa efekt n\u00eb zgjidhjen e \u00e7\u00ebshtjes.<\/p>\n<p>KPA i ka rr\u00ebzuar shkaqet e tjera t\u00eb Shehut p\u00ebr k\u00ebt\u00eb pasuri lidhur me pretendimet p\u00ebr p\u00ebrcaktimin e vitit t\u00eb p\u00ebrfundimit t\u00eb punimeve t\u00eb banes\u00ebs.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cSubjekti i rivler\u00ebsimit nuk arriti t\u00eb provoj\u00eb t\u00eb kund\u00ebrt\u00ebn e sa d\u00ebshmojn\u00eb faktet e administruara gjat\u00eb hetimit administrativ, si dhe shkaqet e ngritura n\u00eb ankimin e tij nuk u gjet\u00ebn t\u00eb bazuara n\u00eb fakte dhe n\u00eb ligj, dhe p\u00ebr pasoj\u00eb nuk arrit\u00ebn t\u00eb b\u00ebjn\u00eb t\u00eb cenuesh\u00ebm konkluzionin e Komisionit lidhur me k\u00ebt\u00eb pasuri\u201d, vler\u00ebson KPA dhe e ka gjetur t\u00eb sakt\u00eb analiz\u00ebn financiare t\u00eb KPK-s\u00eb prej nga \u00ebsht\u00eb konkluduar balanc\u00eb negative n\u00eb shum\u00ebn 5.2 milion\u00eb lek\u00eb p\u00ebr nd\u00ebrtimin e sht\u00ebpis\u00eb tre kate.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cPretendimi i subjektit t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit se n\u00ebse mblidhen t\u00eb gjitha t\u00eb ardhurat e tij nd\u00ebr vite, dhe k\u00ebsaj vlere i zbritet vlera e shpenzimeve totale, si dhe vlera e pasurive t\u00eb krijuara, subjekti do t\u00eb rezultonte me nj\u00eb bilanc pozitiv, vler\u00ebsohet nga trupi gjykues si pretendim i pabazuar\u201d, shprehet trupi gjykues dhe n\u00ebnvizon se analiza financiare p\u00ebr vler\u00ebsimin e mjaftueshm\u00ebris\u00eb s\u00eb burimeve t\u00eb ligjshme p\u00ebr krijimin e pasurive dhe p\u00ebrballimin e shpenzimeve kryhet duke p\u00ebrllogaritur z\u00ebrat e t\u00eb ardhurave, shpenzimeve dhe pasurive t\u00eb krijuara individualisht p\u00ebr \u00e7do vit dhe duke p\u00ebrballur k\u00ebt\u00eb rezultat me pasqyr\u00ebn e deklarimeve t\u00eb subjektit.<\/p>\n<p>Shehu ka kund\u00ebrshtuar n\u00eb ankim konstatimet e ILDKPKI-s\u00eb edhe p\u00ebr automjetin tip Mercedes Benz t\u00eb bler\u00eb n\u00eb vitin 2011, pasuri p\u00ebr t\u00eb cil\u00ebn Kmisioni ka konkluduar balanc\u00eb negative n\u00eb shum\u00ebn 938 mij\u00eb lek\u00eb dhe deklarime t\u00eb pasakta.<\/p>\n<p>\u201c\u2026Pretendimet e ngritura nga subjekti i rivler\u00ebsimit n\u00eb drejtim t\u00eb kund\u00ebrshtimit t\u00eb deklarimit t\u00eb rrem\u00eb t\u00eb vler\u00ebs s\u00eb automjetit, nuk u referohen konkluzioneve p\u00ebrfundimtare t\u00eb Komisionit lidhur me vler\u00ebsimin e k\u00ebsaj pasurie t\u00eb subjektit t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit, por konkluzionit t\u00eb ILDKPKI-s\u00eb n\u00eb raportin e saj t\u00eb vler\u00ebsimit, konkluzion i cili rezultoi se nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb konfirmuar nga ana Komisionit n\u00eb vendimin e tij\u201d, citohet n\u00eb vendimin e KPA q\u00eb ka \u00e7muar t\u00eb mos e shqyrtoj\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb shkak t\u00eb ankimit.<\/p>\n<p>Nd\u00ebrkoh\u00eb, Kolegji ngre pik\u00ebpyetje mbi hetimin e kryer nga KPK lidhur me konstatimin e dy deklartave t\u00eb zhdoganimit t\u00eb mjetit me t\u00eb nj\u00ebjtin num\u00ebr reference dhe t\u00eb nj\u00ebjt\u00ebn dat\u00eb, por me vlera t\u00eb ndryshme &#8211; ku n\u00eb nj\u00ebr\u00ebn prej tyre paraqitet shuma 260 mij\u00eb lek\u00eb, nd\u00ebrsa n\u00eb tjetr\u00ebn vlera prej 470 mij\u00eb lek\u00ebsh.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cNga k\u00ebqyrja me sy t\u00eb lir\u00eb e k\u00ebtyre dy deklaratave, konstatohet se n\u00eb asnj\u00ebr\u00ebn prej tyre nuk ka ndonj\u00eb vul\u00eb revokimi, sikund\u00ebr dhe nuk konstatohet asnj\u00eb element i cili t\u00eb qart\u00ebsoj\u00eb trupin gjykues n\u00eb drejtim t\u00eb verifikimit t\u00eb faktit se cila deklarat\u00eb \u00ebsht\u00eb l\u00ebshuar e para dhe cila e dyta\u201d, v\u00ebren Kolegji dhe shton se n\u00eb dosjen e automjetit nuk ka asnj\u00eb mandatpages\u00eb t\u00eb l\u00ebshuar p\u00ebr pages\u00ebn e tarif\u00ebs s\u00eb zhdoganimit t\u00eb k\u00ebtij automjeti, duke e v\u00ebshtir\u00ebsuar aritjen e nj\u00eb konkluzioni p\u00ebr tarif\u00ebn q\u00eb duhej t\u00eb kishte shlyer dhe at\u00eb q\u00eb realisht ka paguar.<\/p>\n<p>Sipas KPA, Komisioni nuk ka kryer hetime t\u00eb m\u00ebtejshme p\u00ebr k\u00ebt\u00eb situat\u00eb. \u201c[\u2026]Konstatohet se Komisioni n\u00eb vendimin e tij nuk ka shpjeguar arsyet se pse ka pranuar nj\u00ebr\u00ebn deklarat\u00eb dhe jo tjetr\u00ebn dhe as ka arsyetuar n\u00eb lidhje me pasojat q\u00eb kjo situat\u00eb faktike ka p\u00ebr subjektin e rivler\u00ebsimit\u201d, citohet n\u00eb vendim.<\/p>\n<p>Kolegji vler\u00ebson se kjo paqart\u00ebsi e krijuar nga dokumentacioni i administruar prej organit shtet\u00ebror nuk mund t\u00eb vler\u00ebsohet n\u00eb d\u00ebm t\u00eb subjektit t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit.<\/p>\n<p>N\u00eb k\u00ebto kushte, KPA \u00e7mon se mjaftueshm\u00ebria e burimeve t\u00eb ligjshme p\u00ebr blerjen e automjetit dhe p\u00ebrballimin e shpenzimeve t\u00eb tjera lidhur me t\u00eb, duhet t\u00eb vler\u00ebsohet sipas variantit t\u00eb pages\u00ebs s\u00eb vler\u00ebs m\u00eb t\u00eb ul\u00ebt t\u00eb detyrimit doganor. Pavar\u00ebsisht k\u00ebtij vler\u00ebsimi t\u00eb Kolegjit, Shehu ka rezultuar me balanc\u00eb negative n\u00eb shum\u00ebn 712 mij\u00eb lek\u00eb p\u00ebr blerjen e Benz-it.<\/p>\n<p>P\u00ebr balanc\u00ebn negative p\u00ebr blerjen e makin\u00ebs tjet\u00ebr tip Audi n\u00eb vitin 2003 p\u00ebr \u00e7mimin 1200 euro subjekti nuk ka ngritur shkak ankimi dhe p\u00ebr rrjedhoj\u00eb Kolegji ka konfimuar rezultatin e KPK-s\u00eb.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<!-- AddThis Advanced Settings generic via filter on the_content --><!-- AddThis Share Buttons generic via filter on the_content -->","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Kolegji i Posa\u00e7\u00ebm i Apelimit, KPA vendosi m\u00eb 15 n\u00ebntor 2021 t\u00eb l\u00ebr\u00eb n\u00eb fuqi vendimin e Komisionit t\u00eb Pavarur t\u00eb Kualifikimit, KPK p\u00ebr shkarkimin nga detyra t\u00eb ish-gjyqtarit t\u00eb Kuk\u00ebsit Isuf Shehu, pasi i gjeti t\u00eb pabazuara pjes\u00ebn m\u00eb t\u00eb madhe t\u00eb shkaqeve t\u00eb ankimit t\u00eb ngritura prej k\u00ebtij subjekti rivler\u00ebsimi &#8211; q\u00eb n\u00eb [&hellip;]<!-- AddThis Advanced Settings generic via filter on get_the_excerpt --><!-- AddThis Share Buttons generic via filter on get_the_excerpt --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":637,"featured_media":71941,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[13,415,114],"tags":[416,103,112],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/www.reporter.al\/wp-content\/uploads\/Shehu-Isuf.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"Ish-kryetari i Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Kuk\u00ebsit, Isuf Shehu pas seanc\u00ebs d\u00ebgjimore t\u00eb KPK-s\u00eb. Foto: Edmond Hoxhaj. ","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/71940"}],"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=71940"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/71940\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":71942,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/71940\/revisions\/71942"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/71941"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=71940"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=71940"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=71940"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}