{"id":73386,"date":"2021-05-25T19:32:47","date_gmt":"2021-05-25T17:32:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/kpa-perdori-fjalet-e-ish-gjyqtares-enkeledi-hajro-per-te-rrezuar-ankimin-e-saj\/2021\/05\/25\/"},"modified":"2023-04-06T21:35:01","modified_gmt":"2023-04-06T19:35:01","slug":"kpa-perdori-fjalet-e-ish-gjyqtares-enkeledi-hajro-per-te-rrezuar-ankimin-e-saj","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/kpa-perdori-fjalet-e-ish-gjyqtares-enkeledi-hajro-per-te-rrezuar-ankimin-e-saj\/2021\/05\/25\/","title":{"rendered":"KPA p\u00ebrdori fjal\u00ebt e ish-gjyqtares Enkeledi Hajro p\u00ebr t\u00eb rr\u00ebzuar ankimin e saj"},"content":{"rendered":"

Kolegji i Posa\u00e7\u00ebm i Apelimit u nda n\u00eb q\u00ebndrimet mbi pasurit\u00eb e ish-kryetares s\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Tiran\u00ebs, Enkeledi Hajro, por nj\u00eb pjes\u00eb e ankimit kund\u00ebr vendimit t\u00eb KPK-s\u00eb u rr\u00ebzua bazuar mbi vet\u00eb q\u00ebndrimet e ish-gjyqtares.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Kryetarja e Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Tiran\u00ebs, Enkeledi Hajro, duke dal\u00eb nga nj\u00eb seanc\u00eb e Komisionit t\u00eb Pavarur t\u00eb Kualifikimit, KPK, | Foto : LSA<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Vendimi i zbardhur i Kolegjit t\u00eb Posa\u00e7\u00ebm t\u00eb Apelimit, q\u00eb vendosi t\u00eb l\u00ebr\u00eb n\u00eb fuqi shkarkimin p\u00ebr ish-drejtuesen e Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Tiran\u00ebs, Enkeledi Hajro \u00ebsht\u00eb bazuar mbi pasakt\u00ebsit\u00eb n\u00eb deklarimin e dy pasurive.<\/p>\n

Sipas shumic\u00ebs s\u00eb trup\u00ebs, Hajro nuk arriti nivel bind\u00ebs justifikues p\u00ebr gati 25 mij\u00eb euro; nga t\u00eb cilat\u00a0 12 mij\u00eb euro n\u00eb vitin 2007 q\u00eb dalin nga nj\u00eb kontrat\u00eb komplekse p\u00ebr blerje apartamenti dhe 13 mij\u00eb euro n\u00eb vitin 2010 si pjes\u00eb e disa transaksioneve me dy makina t\u00eb blera po me kredi. T\u00eb dyja shumat i p\u00ebrkasin periudh\u00ebs para se Hajro t\u00eb fillonte pun\u00eb si gjyqtare.<\/p>\n

Shumica e formuar nga Albana Shtylla, Sokol \u00c7omo, Rezarta Schuetz dhe Natasha Mulaj nuk e kan\u00eb pranuar pretendimin e Hajros se apartamenti ishte bler\u00eb p\u00ebr 70 mij\u00eb euro dhe shuma 82 mij\u00eb ishte sh\u00ebnuar fiktivisht n\u00eb nj\u00eb prej kontratave, p\u00ebr t\u00eb mund\u00ebsuar nj\u00eb kreditim m\u00eb t\u00eb madh t\u00eb sht\u00ebpis\u00eb nga banka.<\/p>\n

Shumica thot\u00eb se pavar\u00ebsisht deklaratave noteriale t\u00eb shit\u00ebsve dhe pavar\u00ebsisht dokumentacionit t\u00eb kredis\u00eb baz\u00eb p\u00ebr vler\u00ebsimin e vler\u00ebs s\u00eb banes\u00ebs, do t\u00eb merrej \u201ckontrata me rezerv\u00eb\u201d, n\u00eb t\u00eb cil\u00ebn parashikohej \u00e7mimi prej 82 mij\u00eb euro. Shumica thot\u00eb se diferenca prej 12 mij\u00eb eurosh p\u00ebrb\u00ebn nj\u00eb shum\u00eb me burim t\u00eb padeklaruar, e p\u00ebr rrjedhoj\u00eb e b\u00ebn deklarimin e Hajros t\u00eb pasakt\u00eb.<\/p>\n

\u201cN\u00eb mb\u00ebshtetje t\u00eb arsyetimit m\u00eb sip\u00ebr, trupi gjykues, nisur nga fakti q\u00eb subjekti i rivler\u00ebsimit n\u00eb deklarat\u00ebn e pasuris\u00eb veting ka deklaruar si burim krijimi vet\u00ebm kredin\u00eb e financuar n\u00eb vler\u00ebn 70.000 euro dhe jo burimin e krijimit p\u00ebr gjith\u00eb \u00e7mimin e apartamentit n\u00eb vler\u00ebn 82.000 euro, arrin n\u00eb konkluzionin se subjekti i rivler\u00ebsimit ka pasakt\u00ebsi n\u00eb deklarat\u00ebn e pasuris\u00eb \u201cveting\u201d, arsyeton shumica.<\/p>\n

N\u00eb pakic\u00eb, Ina Rama arsyeton se transaksionet ishin t\u00eb besueshme dhe se shumica duhej t\u00eb kishte marr\u00eb parasysh q\u00eb vlera prej 70 mij\u00eb eurosh ishte deklaruar n\u00eb vazhdim gjat\u00eb disa viteve dhe n\u00eb deklarat\u00ebn \u201cveting\u201d, bashk\u00eb me sqarimin se pse shuma ishte p\u00ebrcaktuar 82 mij\u00eb euro n\u00eb kontrat\u00eb.<\/p>\n

\u201cDeklaron si vler\u00eb t\u00eb blerjes s\u00eb apartamentit vler\u00ebn prej 70.000 eurosh, duke deklaruar paralelisht se n\u00eb kontrat\u00eb \u00ebsht\u00eb p\u00ebrshkruar vlera prej 82.000 eurosh si \u00e7mim i blerjes, n\u00eb funksion t\u00eb p\u00ebrfitimit t\u00eb nj\u00eb kredie,\u201d thot\u00eb Rama n\u00eb arsyetim.<\/p>\n

Gjyqtarja n\u00eb pakic\u00eb thot\u00eb se fiktiviteti i kontrat\u00ebs p\u00ebr t\u00eb p\u00ebrfituar kredi mund t\u00eb merrej n\u00eb konsiderat\u00eb p\u00ebrsa i p\u00ebrket etik\u00ebs, por proporcionalisht nuk mund t\u00eb ishte penalizues, sa koh\u00eb i p\u00ebrket nj\u00eb periudh\u00eb para se Hajro t\u00eb ishte pjes\u00eb e gjyq\u00ebsorit.<\/p>\n

Rama thot\u00eb se arsyetimet e ish-gjyqtares ishin \u201cbind\u00ebse dhe t\u00eb v\u00ebrteta, pavar\u00ebsisht nj\u00eblloj paqart\u00ebsie e mungese kohezioni apo kaotizmi n\u00eb drejtim t\u00eb gjuh\u00ebs t\u00eb nd\u00ebrtuar jo krejt\u00ebsisht mir\u00eb, t\u00eb diktuar n\u00eb vler\u00ebsimin tim edhe nga kompleksiteti i vet\u00eb natyr\u00ebs s\u00eb transaksionit t\u00eb deklaruar\u201d.<\/p>\n

Nj\u00ebsoj, shumica nuk ka pranuar as arsyetimet p\u00ebr nj\u00eb shum\u00eb 8 mij\u00eb euro t\u00eb marr\u00eb hua nga prind\u00ebrit e bashk\u00ebshortit dhe 5 mij\u00eb euro t\u00eb paguara nga motra e bashk\u00ebshortit n\u00eb blerjen e nj\u00eb makine me leasing.<\/p>\n

Shumica arsyeton n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb pik\u00eb se k\u00ebto veprime nuk ishin deklaruar n\u00eb koh\u00ebn kur kan\u00eb ndodhur dhe se deklarimi i m\u00ebvonsh\u00ebm i k\u00ebtyre marr\u00ebdh\u00ebnieve p\u00ebr llogari t\u00eb vetingut, nuk provonte dot se ato kishin qen\u00eb burime p\u00ebr pasurin\u00eb.<\/p>\n

\u201cP\u00ebr pasoj\u00eb, n\u00eb kushtet kur ky fakt nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb materializuar n\u00eb nj\u00eb dokument ligjor n\u00eb koh\u00ebn e dh\u00ebnies s\u00eb shum\u00ebs s\u00eb pretenduar, nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb provuar me dokument justifikues ligjor q\u00eb i \u00ebsht\u00eb dh\u00ebn\u00eb personit t\u00eb lidhur p\u00ebr t\u00eb bler\u00eb automjetin, nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb deklaruar n\u00eb deklarat\u00ebn e interesave privat\u00eb t\u00eb vitit 2010, q\u00eb n\u00eb baz\u00eb t\u00eb nenit 32, pika 5 e ligjit nr. 84\/2016 sh\u00ebrben si prov\u00eb n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb proces, si dhe as n\u00eb deklarat\u00ebn e pasuris\u00eb veting, trupi gjykues vler\u00ebson se shuma prej 8.000 eurosh nuk plot\u00ebson kushtet p\u00ebr t\u2019u konsideruar e ardhur e ligjshme,\u201d thuhet n\u00eb arsyetimin e shumic\u00ebs.<\/p>\n

N\u00eb pakic\u00eb, Ina Rama arsyeton se marr\u00ebdh\u00ebnia me motr\u00ebn e bashk\u00ebshortit n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb rast provohej prej deklarimit se kjo e fundit kishte marr\u00eb n\u00eb dor\u00ebzim makin\u00ebn \u201cde fakto\u201d dhe se shumat e deklaruara p\u00ebrkonin me transaksionet e kryera prej bashk\u00ebshortit t\u00eb subjektit.<\/p>\n

N\u00eb vijim shumica arsyeton se Hajro nuk kishte t\u00eb ardhura t\u00eb mjaftueshme n\u00eb disa vite. Analiza financiare e nxjerr ish-gjyqtaren me bilanc negativ p\u00ebr rreth 2.1 milion\u00eb lek\u00eb, q\u00eb sipas shumic\u00ebs sillnin edhe konfirmimin e vendimit t\u00eb shkarkimit.<\/p>\n

Por gjyqtarja Ina Rama arsyeton s\u00ebrish se ky bilanc ndikohej prej marrjes n\u00eb konsiderat\u00eb t\u00eb \u00e7mimit 82 mij\u00eb euro p\u00ebr apartamentin. Rama v\u00eb n\u00eb dukje se n\u00ebse \u00e7mimi i apartamentit do t\u00eb llogaritej 70 mij\u00eb euro, bilanci negativ zbutej n\u00eb 568 mij\u00eb lek\u00eb, i ndar\u00eb n\u00eb shuma m\u00eb t\u00eb vogla n\u00eb disa vite dhe jo i mjaftuesh\u00ebm p\u00ebr t\u00eb sjell\u00eb si pasoj\u00eb shkarkimin.<\/p>\n

Nd\u00ebrkoh\u00eb, pjesa e padis\u00eb s\u00eb Hajros sa i p\u00ebrket shkeljes s\u00eb procedur\u00ebs nga KPK u rr\u00ebzua unanimisht n\u00eb KPA. Kolegji ka p\u00ebrdorur fjal\u00ebt e ish-gjyqtares si argument n\u00eb arsyetimin e tij.<\/p>\n

\u201cE gjith\u00eb procedura e ndjekur deri m\u00eb tani nga Komisioni ka qen\u00eb korrekte. Ju fal\u00ebnderoj p\u00ebr k\u00ebt\u00eb\u201d, citohet t\u00eb ket\u00eb th\u00ebn\u00eb Hajro n\u00eb KPK gjat\u00eb seanc\u00ebs d\u00ebgjimore, duke rr\u00ebzuar pretendimin e saj se nuk i ishin marr\u00eb parasysh provat e t\u00eb ngjashme.<\/p>\n

Nga sa del prej vendimit, duket se Hajro nuk e ka pritur se do t\u00eb shkarkohej dhe ka vler\u00ebsuar si korrekt hetimin dhe p\u00ebrfundimet e KPK-s\u00eb. N\u00eb pretendimet e saj n\u00eb ankim, ish-gjyqtarja shprehet se kishte krijuar bindjen prej fjal\u00ebs s\u00eb relatorit se Komisioni kishte pranuar si provuese provat e saj.<\/p>\n

KPA shprehet n\u00eb vendim se ndryshe nga pretendimi i saj, ish-gjyqtarja kishte shprehur n\u00eb seanc\u00eb fjal\u00eb fal\u00ebnderuese p\u00ebr relatorin dhe shpjegimet e dh\u00ebna prej tij.\u00a0 \u201cFal\u00ebnderoj relatorin. Ishte korrekt n\u00eb parashtrimin e t\u00eb gjitha fakteve dhe t\u00eb provave q\u00eb un\u00eb kam paraqitur dhe u q\u00ebndroj observacioneve q\u00eb un\u00eb kam paraqitur,\u201d citohet s\u00ebrish Hajro n\u00eb vendimin e Kolegjit.<\/p>\n

Pretendimet e tjera t\u00eb Hajros mbi vler\u00ebsimin ndryshe t\u00eb situatave t\u00eb ngjashme n\u00eb procesin ndaj gjyqtareve t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs Kushtetuese Vitore Tusha, Fiona Papajorgji dhe Elsa Toska, u rr\u00ebzua nga KPA me arsyetimin se nuk kishin ngjashm\u00ebri dhe se provat e sjella ishin t\u00eb ndryshme.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Kolegji i Posa\u00e7\u00ebm i Apelimit u nda n\u00eb q\u00ebndrimet mbi pasurit\u00eb e ish-kryetares s\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Tiran\u00ebs, Enkeledi Hajro, por nj\u00eb pjes\u00eb e ankimit kund\u00ebr vendimit t\u00eb KPK-s\u00eb u rr\u00ebzua bazuar mbi vet\u00eb q\u00ebndrimet e ish-gjyqtares.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":97,"featured_media":73387,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[13,415,114,362],"tags":[111,103,112],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/www.reporter.al\/wp-content\/uploads\/20190605_194953_050619026-1_tcvNvgl.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"Kryetarja e Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Tiran\u00ebs, Enkeledi Hajro, duke dal\u00eb nga nj\u00eb seanc\u00eb e Komisionit t\u00eb Pavarur t\u00eb Kualifikimit, KPK, | Foto : LSA","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/73386"}],"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=73386"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/73386\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":73388,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/73386\/revisions\/73388"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/73387"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=73386"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=73386"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=73386"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}