{"id":75229,"date":"2020-03-11T15:16:24","date_gmt":"2020-03-11T14:16:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/kolegji-u-nda-mbi-shkakun-e-shkarkimit-te-gjyqtares-entela-prifti\/2020\/03\/11\/"},"modified":"2023-04-07T04:23:42","modified_gmt":"2023-04-07T02:23:42","slug":"kolegji-u-nda-mbi-shkakun-e-shkarkimit-te-gjyqtares-entela-prifti","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/kolegji-u-nda-mbi-shkakun-e-shkarkimit-te-gjyqtares-entela-prifti\/2020\/03\/11\/","title":{"rendered":"Kolegji u nda mbi shkakun e shkarkimit t\u00eb gjyqtares Entela Prifti"},"content":{"rendered":"

An\u00ebtar\u00ebt e trup\u00ebs gjykuese e KPA q\u00eb shqyrtoi ankimin e ish-kryetares s\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Apelit Kor\u00e7\u00eb, Entela Prifti ndajn\u00eb t\u00eb nj\u00ebjtin mendim se vendimi i KPK p\u00ebr shkarkimin e saj \u00ebsht\u00eb i drejt\u00eb, por gjyqtarja Ina Rama, ka mbajtur mendim paralel lidhur me cil\u00ebsimin e shkakut t\u00eb shkarkimit.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Ish-Kryetarja e Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Apelit te Kor\u00e7\u00ebs, Entela Prifti, gjat\u00eb nj\u00eb seance te Komisionit t\u00eb Pavarur te Kualifikimit, KPK, | Foto nga : LSA<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Kolegji i Posa\u00e7\u00ebm i Apelimit, KPA i ka rr\u00ebzuar thuajse t\u00eb gjitha shkaqet e ankimit t\u00eb ish-Kryetares s\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Apelit Kor\u00e7\u00eb, Entela Prifti duke \u00e7muar se ajo kishte c\u00ebnuar besimin e publikut tek drejt\u00ebsia dhe la n\u00eb fuqi vendimin e Komisionit t\u00eb Pavarur t\u00eb Kualifikimit, KPK p\u00ebr shkarkimin e saj.<\/p>\n

Trupa gjykuese e KPA e p\u00ebrb\u00ebr\u00eb nga Natasha Mulaj kryesuese, Ardian Hajdari relator dhe Luan Daci, Ina Rama e Rezarta Schuetz an\u00ebtar\u00eb, \u00e7moj\u00eb se pretendimet e Priftit p\u00ebr munges\u00eb t\u00eb nj\u00eb procesi t\u00eb rregullt ligjor n\u00eb Komision jan\u00eb t\u00eb pabazuara.<\/p>\n

Pavar\u00ebsisht se t\u00eb pes\u00eb an\u00ebtar\u00ebt e Kolegjit bien dakord se ish-gjyqtarja Prifti ka munges\u00eb t\u00eb burimeve t\u00eb ligjshme dhe ka kryer deklarime t\u00eb rreme p\u00ebr pasurit\u00eb e shumta q\u00eb zot\u00ebron duke merituar shkarkimin nga detyra, gjyqtarja Ina Rama ka mbajtur mendim paralel lidhur me cil\u00ebsimin e shumic\u00ebs se subjekti i rivler\u00ebsimit ka c\u00ebnuar besimin e publikut tek sistemi i drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb – konkluzion i arritur m\u00eb par\u00eb edhe nga KPK. Rama vler\u00ebson se ky shkak shkarkimi konsiderohet p\u00ebr t\u00eb tre kriteret n\u00eb t\u00ebr\u00ebsi, kur nuk arrihet konkluzioni p\u00ebr shkarkim n\u00eb secilin prej tyre ve\u00e7mas.<\/p>\n

Kolegji konkludon se Prifti kishte pasuri t\u00eb padeklaruara, munges\u00eb burimesh financiare t\u00eb ligjshme dhe nj\u00eb s\u00ebr\u00eb deklarimesh t\u00eb rreme t\u00eb kryera prej saj dhe bashk\u00ebshortit.<\/p>\n

Mungesa e burimeve dhe deklarimet e rreme<\/strong><\/p>\n

Kolegji nuk bindet nga deklarimet e gjyqtares Prifti lidhur me p\u00ebrfitimin e gjysm\u00ebs s\u00eb nj\u00eb vile 198 m2 n\u00eb Kor\u00e7\u00eb n\u00ebp\u00ebrmjet dhurimit n\u00eb 2008-\u00ebn dhe t\u00eb blerjes s\u00eb gjysm\u00ebs tjet\u00ebr t\u00eb k\u00ebsaj nd\u00ebrtese n\u00eb 2009-\u00ebn p\u00ebr vler\u00ebn 4 milion\u00eb lek\u00eb. KPA \u00e7mon se Prifti \u00ebsht\u00eb p\u00ebrpjekur t\u00eb paraqes\u00eb n\u00eb m\u00ebnyr\u00eb t\u00eb pasakt\u00eb pasurin\u00eb dhe se nuk arriti t\u00eb provoj\u00eb t\u00eb kund\u00ebrt\u00ebn e fakteve t\u00eb konstatuara nga Komisioni, sipas t\u00eb cilit bashk\u00ebshorti ka b\u0451r\u0451 deklarim t\u0451 rrem\u0451 n\u0451 lidhje me dhurimin e \u00bd pjes\u0451 t\u0451 k\u0451saj nd\u0451rtese dhe ka n\u0451nshkruar nj\u0451 kontrat\u0451 fiktive.<\/p>\n

KPA \u00e7mon se Prifti dhe bashk\u00ebshorti i saj kishin detyrimin t\u00eb deklaronin sip\u00ebrfaqen totale t\u00eb shfryt\u00ebzimit t\u00eb banes\u00ebs, me p\u00ebrshkrimin e kateve t\u00eb banimit, edhe pse n\u00eb kartel\u00ebn e pron\u00ebsis\u00eb \u00ebsht\u00eb sh\u00ebnuar vet\u00ebm gjurma nd\u00ebrtimore.<\/p>\n

N\u00eb vendimin e KPA thuhet se bashk\u00ebshorti i Priftit, P.T. ka sh\u00ebnuar n\u00eb deklarat\u00ebn veting se dhurimi i nj\u00eb t\u00eb dyt\u00ebs s\u00eb vil\u00ebs ka ardhur si pasoj\u00eb e marr\u00ebdh\u00ebnieve familjare miq\u00ebsore dhe nj\u00eb investimi t\u00eb kryer p\u00ebr rikonstruksionin e saj n\u00eb vitet 2000-2001, duke shpjeguar se ka jetuar deri n\u00eb vitin 2004 familjarisht n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb banes\u00eb me kontrat\u00eb qiraje.<\/p>\n

\u201cKy pretendim i subjektit t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb bind\u00ebs dhe nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb i mb\u00ebshtetur n\u00eb prova. Nga nj\u00ebra an\u00eb subjekti i rivler\u00ebsimit, znj. Entela Prifti, dhe bashk\u00ebshorti i saj kan\u00eb paguar 10.000 lek\u00eb qira p\u00ebr t\u00eb banuar n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb nd\u00ebrtes\u00eb, sipas nj\u00eb deklarate me shkrim dore t\u00eb n\u00ebnshkruar nga znj. A.K. (bashk\u00ebshortja e dhuruesit B.K.), nga ana tjet\u00ebr kjo e fundit i njihte shpenzimet p\u00ebr rikonstruksion banese subjektit t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit dhe bashk\u00ebshortit t\u00eb saj, madje p\u00ebr k\u00ebt\u00eb fakt i kishte v\u00ebn\u00eb vetes (A.K.) afat 2-vje\u00e7ar p\u00ebr shlyerjen e k\u00ebtyre shpenzimeve, n\u00eb t\u00eb kund\u00ebrt z. P.T. do t\u00eb kompensohej me nd\u00ebrtes\u00ebn p\u00ebr t\u00eb cil\u00ebn i paguante qira znj. A.K\u201d, konstaton Kolegji..<\/p>\n

Kolegji v\u00ebren se administratorja e nd\u00ebrtes\u00ebs \u00ebsht\u00eb bashk\u00ebshortja e B.K, t\u00eb cilit iu dhurua 1\u20442 e nd\u00ebrtes\u00ebs n\u00eb vitin 2007. Aty shtohet fakti se A.K. rezulton si administratore e katit t\u00eb par\u00eb, n\u00eb nj\u00eb koh\u00eb q\u00eb nd\u00ebrtesa ishte n\u00eb pron\u00ebsi t\u00eb nj\u00eb familje tjet\u00ebr q\u00eb e kishte p\u00ebrfituar me vendim t\u00eb Komisionit t\u00eb Kthimit dhe Kompensimit t\u00eb Pronave t\u00eb Ish-Pronar\u00ebve t\u00eb Bashkis\u00eb Kor\u00e7\u00eb, q\u00eb prej shtatorit t\u00eb vitit 1993.<\/p>\n

\u201cSi rrjedhoj\u00eb, znj. A.K. nuk legjitimohet t\u00eb krijoj\u00eb marr\u00ebdh\u00ebnie juridike n\u00eb lidhje me pron\u00ebn, aq m\u00eb tep\u00ebr t\u00eb kusht\u00ebzuar deri n\u00eb dhurimin e saj n\u00eb rast mosp\u00ebrmbushjeje nga ana e saj t\u00eb shpenzimeve t\u00eb kryera nga qiramarr\u00ebsi\u201d, arsyeton trupa gjykuese e KPA. \u201cKolegji krijoi bindjen se n\u00ebp\u00ebrmjet kontrat\u00ebs s\u00eb dhurimit, subjekti nuk ka treguar vler\u00ebn reale t\u00eb fitimit t\u00eb k\u00ebsaj pasurie, si pasoj\u00eb as burimin e krijimit t\u00eb saj\u201d, thekson m\u00eb tej Kolegji.<\/p>\n

\u201cMeqen\u00ebse nd\u00ebrtesa ndodhet n\u00eb qend\u00ebr t\u00eb qytetit t\u00eb Kor\u00e7\u00ebs, ka vlera kulturore e historike dhe \u00ebsht\u00eb burim i konsideruesh\u00ebm t\u00eb ardhurash, vlera e blerjes nuk justifikohet me \u00e7mimin e referenc\u00ebs\u201d, thuhet m\u00eb tej n\u00eb vendimin e KPA.<\/p>\n

KPA konkludon se Prifti nuk ka pasur burime t\u00eb ligjshme edhe p\u00ebr blerjen e nj\u00eb apartamenti duplex me sip\u00ebrfaqe 235 m\u00b2 n\u00eb vitin 2004 n\u00eb Kor\u00e7\u00eb, si edhe p\u00ebr investimet e kryera aty.<\/p>\n

Kolegji konstaton se bashk\u00ebshorti i subjektit t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit ka lidhur nj\u00eb kontrat\u00eb paraprake shitblerjeje n\u00eb t\u00eb cil\u00ebn p\u00ebrcaktohet se shit\u00ebsi do t\u2019i dor\u00ebzoj\u00eb bler\u00ebsit apartamentin pas p\u00ebrfundimit t\u00eb nd\u00ebrtimit dhe se \u00e7mimi i blerjes s\u00eb apartamentit prej 2 milion\u00eb lek\u00ebsh \u00ebsht\u00eb paguar jasht\u00eb zyr\u00ebs noteriale. Sipas KPA, ky fakt nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb pasqyruar n\u00eb deklarat\u00ebn para fillimit t\u00eb detyr\u00ebs t\u00eb vitit 2003 nga gjyqtarja Prifti dhe as nga bashk\u00ebshorti i saj.<\/p>\n

Lidhur me investimin e kryer p\u00ebr p\u00ebrfundimin e rifiniturave n\u00eb vler\u00ebn 1.3 milion\u00eb lek\u00eb, Kolegji konstaton se ky situacion nuk ka as dat\u00ebn dhe as periudh\u00ebn kur jan\u00eb realizuar punimet, si dhe mungon dokumentacioni ligjor p\u00ebr likuidimin e shum\u00ebs. Kolegji konkludon se p\u00ebrllogaritjet e t\u00eb ardhurave t\u00eb bashk\u00ebshort\u00ebve Prifti n\u00eb t\u00eb gjitha m\u00ebnyrat e mundshme, nuk sjellin diferenc\u00eb pozitive p\u00ebr blerjen e k\u00ebsaj pasurie dhe kryerjen e investimeve.<\/p>\n

Prifti dhe bashk\u00ebshorti i saj ka rezultuar t\u00eb ken\u00eb investuar n\u00eb apartamentin duplex n\u00eb vler\u00ebn 4 milion\u00eb lek\u00eb, n\u00eb shtimin e likuiditeteve n\u00eb llogarit\u00eb bankare n\u00eb vler\u00ebn 3 milion\u00eb lek\u00eb, n\u00eb blerjen e nj\u00eb toke ar\u00eb n\u00eb vler\u00ebn 576.667 lek\u00eb, si dhe n\u00eb blerjen e aksioneve n\u00eb nj\u00eb shoq\u00ebri\u00a0 n\u00eb vler\u00ebn 6.2 milion\u00eb lek\u00eb.<\/p>\n

P\u00ebr t\u00eb mund\u00ebsuar blerjen e disa prej k\u00ebtyre pasurive, Prifti ka deklaruar disa huamarrje, nj\u00eb n\u00eb vler\u00ebn 1 milion lek\u00eb, nj\u00eb n\u00eb vler\u00ebn 5 milion lek\u00eb dhe nj\u00eb kredi bankare n\u00eb vler\u00ebn 2.445.934 lek\u00eb. Nd\u00ebrkoh\u00eb, gjat\u00eb k\u00ebsaj periudhe, kan\u00eb kryer nj\u00eb transfert\u00eb bankare n\u00eb Shtetet e Bashkuara t\u00eb Amerik\u00ebs, n\u00eb vler\u00ebn 1.739.659 lek\u00eb, kan\u00eb paguar k\u00ebste kredie n\u00eb vler\u00ebn 1.420.000 lek\u00eb dhe kan\u00eb paguar qira banese n\u00eb shum\u00ebn 144.000 lek\u00eb.<\/p>\n

\u201cNga kjo analiz\u00eb, edhe n\u00ebse do t\u00eb konsideronim se huamarr\u00ebsit kan\u00eb pasur mund\u00ebsi t\u2019i jepnin subjektit dhe bashk\u00ebshortit t\u00eb saj vlerat e m\u00ebsip\u00ebrme dhe t\u00eb konsideronim si t\u00eb ligjshme t\u00eb ardhur\u00ebn e p\u00ebrfituar nga shitja e makin\u00ebs, totali i t\u00eb ardhurave 16.974.472,2 lek\u00eb nuk do t\u00eb ishte i mjaftuesh\u00ebm as p\u00ebr blerjen e pasurive t\u00eb m\u00ebsip\u00ebrme dhe p\u00ebrballimin e shpenzimeve t\u00eb sip\u00ebrcituara n\u00eb vler\u00ebn 17.198.274,79 lek\u00eb\u2026, pa llogaritur k\u00ebtu shpenzimet e nevojshme p\u00ebr jetes\u00eb\u201d, thuhet n\u00eb vendim.<\/p>\n

P\u00ebr nj\u00eb ambient sh\u00ebrbimi me sip\u00ebrfaqe 519 m2 n\u00eb nj\u00eb qend\u00ebr tregtare n\u00eb Kor\u00e7\u00eb p\u00ebr t\u00eb cil\u00ebn Prifti ka deklaruar se bashk\u00ebshorti e ka p\u00ebrfituar n\u00eb 2012-\u00ebn p\u00ebrmes shk\u00ebmbimit t\u00eb aksioneve n\u00eb mas\u00ebn 8%, n\u00eb vler\u00ebn 14.274.700 lek\u00eb, Kolegji \u00e7mon se nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb shpjeguar bindsh\u00ebm burimi i ligjsh\u00ebm, si dhe rezulton se subjekti i rivler\u0451simit \u00ebsht\u00eb p\u00ebrpjekur t\u00eb paraqes\u00eb n\u00eb m\u00ebnyr\u00eb t\u00eb pasakt\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb pasuri. Sipas KPA, Prifti ka d\u00ebshtuar t\u00eb provoj\u00eb t\u00eb kund\u00ebrt\u00ebn e fakteve t\u00eb konstatuara nga Komisioni p\u00ebr munges\u00eb t\u00eb burimeve t\u00eb ligjshme dhe mos justifikim t\u00eb vler\u00ebs reale t\u00eb saj n\u00ebp\u00ebrmjet aktit t\u00eb shk\u00ebmbimit.<\/p>\n

N\u00eb deklarat\u00ebn veting, bashk\u00ebshorti i Priftit ka deklaruar se aksionet n\u00eb mas\u00ebn 8%, n\u00eb vler\u00ebn 14.274.700 lek\u00eb, i ka shk\u00ebmbyer me pasurin\u00eb me sip\u00ebrfaqe 519 m2, ose me vler\u00eb 27.360 lek\u00eb\/m2. Ashtu si KPK, edhe Kolegji konstaton se vlera me t\u00eb cil\u00ebn \u00ebsht\u00eb shk\u00ebmbyer nj\u00ebsia rezulton e ul\u00ebt krahasuar me tregun, pasi vet\u00ebm vlera e kostos s\u00eb nd\u00ebrtimit rezulton 15.535.746 lek\u00eb, nd\u00ebrsa vlera me kosto shfryt\u00ebzimi \u00ebsht\u00eb 18.917.550 lek\u00eb, ose 36.450 lek\u00eb\/m2.<\/p>\n

Lidhur me nj\u00eb apartament me sip\u00ebrfaqe 55 m\u00b2 n\u00eb Kor\u00e7\u00eb, t\u00eb bler\u00eb n\u00eb shtator t\u00eb vitit 2012 me vler\u00eb 2.835.500 lek\u00eb dhe t\u00eb regjistruar n\u00eb hipotek\u00eb nj\u00eb muaj m\u00eb von\u00eb, Kolegji ashtu si edhe Komisioni konkludon se Prifti ka munges\u00eb t\u00eb burimeve financiare p\u00ebr krijimin e k\u00ebsaj pasurie.<\/p>\n

Prifti ka deklaruar se p\u00ebr blerjen e k\u00ebtij apartamenti kan\u00eb sh\u00ebrbyer t\u00eb ardhurat familjare nga kursimet dhe nj\u00eb pages\u00eb prej 1.6 milion lek\u00ebsh, e kryer cash nga ana e babait t\u00eb bashk\u00ebshortit. Por, Kolegjit i ka rezultuar se t\u00eb ardhurat e p\u00ebrfituara nga prind\u00ebrit e bashk\u00ebshortit nuk jan\u00eb t\u00eb mjaftueshme p\u00ebr p\u00ebrballimin e shpenzimeve t\u00eb jetes\u00ebs dhe p\u00ebr krijimin e kursimeve.<\/p>\n

N\u00eb vendim thuhet se nuk jan\u00eb provuar me kontrat\u00eb qiraje apo dokumente zyrtare t\u00eb ardhurat nga qiraja e apartamentit t\u00eb kunat\u00ebs. Sipas KPA, nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb paraqitur asnj\u00eb dokument provues lidhur me burimin tjet\u00ebr t\u00eb krijimit t\u00eb shum\u00ebs 1.6 milion\u00eb lek\u00eb nga shitja e sht\u00ebpis\u00eb s\u00eb vajz\u00ebs s\u00eb vjehrrit. Kolegji v\u00ebren se pasi bashk\u00ebshorti i Priftit, ka shitur sht\u00ebpin\u00eb e motr\u00ebs s\u00eb tij n\u00eb vitin 2002 p\u00ebr \u00e7mimin 1.8 milion\u00eb lek\u00eb, t\u00eb nes\u00ebrmen ka b\u00ebr\u00eb transferimin e shum\u00ebs 12.45 USD q\u00eb \u00ebsht\u00eb e p\u00ebraf\u00ebrt me \u00e7mimin e shitjes s\u00eb apartamentit, n\u00eb llogarin\u00eb e kunatit t\u00eb tij.<\/p>\n

Nd\u00ebrkoh\u00eb, Kolegji e ka quajtur t\u00eb drejt\u00eb pretendimin e Priftit se Komisioni ka gabuar kur e ka vler\u00ebsuar fshehje t\u00eb pasuris\u00eb faktin se bashk\u00ebshorti i saj nuk e ka pasqyruar n\u00eb rubrik\u00ebn e tij pjes\u00ebn takuese t\u00eb apartamentit. \u201c\u2026Kolegji konstaton se n\u00eb rrethanat konkrete nuk rezulton t\u00eb kemi t\u00eb b\u00ebjm\u00eb me fshehje pasurie. Ka pasakt\u00ebsi n\u00eb deklarim nga ana e bashk\u00ebshortit t\u00eb subjektit n\u00eb deklarat\u00ebn veting, por nuk konsiston n\u00eb fshehjen e pasuris\u00eb, aq m\u00eb tep\u00ebr q\u00eb subjekti e ka deklaruar k\u00ebt\u00eb pasuri\u201d, thuhet n\u00eb vendimin e KPA.<\/p>\n

Kolegji vler\u00ebson se ish-gjyqtarja Prifti ka kryer deklarim t\u00eb rrem\u00eb lidhur me \u00e7mimin e shitjes s\u00eb nj\u00eb apartamenti tjet\u00ebr me sip\u00ebrfaqe 70 m2 n\u00eb Kor\u00e7\u00eb, n\u00eb bashk\u00ebpron\u00ebsi me prind\u00ebrit, shitur n\u00eb prill t\u00eb vitit 2015 n\u00eb vler\u00ebn 1.950.000 lek\u00eb.<\/p>\n

Kolegji v\u00ebren se n\u00eb vitin 2005 \u00ebsht\u00eb deklaruar se ky apartament \u00ebsht\u00eb shitur n\u00eb vler\u00ebn 3.1 milion\u00eb lek\u00eb, nd\u00ebrsa n\u00eb kontrat\u00ebn e shitjes figuron shuma 1.950.000 lek\u00eb. Nd\u00ebrkoh\u00eb, n\u00eb deklarat\u00ebn veting, Prifti ka deklaruar se ka p\u00ebrfituar nj\u00eb t\u00eb tret\u00ebn e t\u00eb ardhurave nga shitja e e k\u00ebtij apartamenti, n\u00eb vler\u00ebn 1 milion lek\u00eb, ndryshe nga konkluzioni i Komisionit se pjesa takuese e subjektit ka qen\u00eb 650 mij\u00eb lek\u00eb.<\/p>\n

Duke e konsideruar t\u00eb pabazuar vler\u00ebsimin e KPK, Prifti ka pretenduar se diferenca prej 1.150.000 lek\u00ebsh midis deklarimit t\u00eb vler\u00ebs s\u00eb shitjes n\u00eb vitin 2005 n\u00eb shum\u00ebn 3.1 milion\u00eb lek\u00eb dhe kontrat\u00ebs s\u00eb shitjes me vler\u00eb 1.950.000 lek\u00eb vjen si pasoj\u00eb e shtimit t\u00eb vler\u00ebs s\u00eb p\u00ebrfituar nga shitja e sendeve t\u00eb luajtshme t\u00eb banes\u00ebs dhe nga mungesa e rregullimit ligjor p\u00ebr udh\u00ebzimin e plot\u00ebsimit t\u00eb deklarat\u00ebs s\u00eb pasuris\u00eb.<\/p>\n

Kolegji vler\u00ebson se p\u00ebr t\u00eb qen\u00eb e sakt\u00eb n\u00eb deklarim, nuk do t\u00eb ishte nevoja p\u00ebr udh\u00ebzim pasi subjekti i deklarimit e ka detyrim ligjor deklarimin e shitjes s\u00eb sendeve t\u00eb banes\u00ebs n\u00eb koh\u00eb reale. Gjithashtu, trupa gjykuese ngre dyshime mbi v\u00ebrtet\u00ebsin\u00eb e deklarimeve t\u00eb Priftit p\u00ebr vler\u00ebn e shitjes s\u00eb mobiljeve.<\/p>\n

\u201cNga ana tjet\u00ebr, duke analizuar vler\u00ebn e banes\u00ebs sipas kontrat\u00ebs (1.950.000 lek\u00eb), \u00ebsht\u00eb i dyshimt\u00eb fakti q\u00eb vlera e sendeve t\u00eb luajtshme, sipas deklarimit t\u00eb subjektit (1.150.000 lek\u00eb), t\u00eb jet\u00eb m\u00eb e madhe se gjysma e vler\u00ebs s\u00eb sht\u00ebpis\u00eb dhe ky fakt t\u00eb mos pasqyrohet n\u00eb kontrat\u00eb\u201d, konkludon Kolegji duke i quajtur jo bind\u00ebse shpjegimet e Priftit.<\/p>\n

Lidhur me dy autoveturat tip \u201cRenault\u201d dhe tip \u201cBenz DaimlerChrysler\u201d, ashtu si KPK, edhe Kolegji vler\u00ebson se \u00e7mimet e shitjes s\u00eb k\u00ebtyre automjeteve jan\u00eb shum\u00eb m\u00eb t\u00eb larta se \u00e7mimet e blerjes, edhe pas p\u00ebrdorimit dhe konsumimit t\u00eb tyre.<\/p>\n

N\u00eb vendim sqarohet se Prifti ka shitur n\u00eb shtator t\u00eb 2004-\u00ebs nj\u00eb makin\u00eb tip \u201cRenault\u201d, n\u00eb vler\u00ebn prej 450 mij\u00eb lek\u00ebsh, t\u00eb cil\u00ebn e kishte bler\u00eb n\u00eb vitin 2002 p\u00ebr 500 USD dhe n\u00eb vitin 2007 nj\u00eb automjet tip \u201cBenz Daimler Chrysler\u201d n\u00eb vler\u00ebn 500 mij\u00eb lek\u00eb q\u00eb e ka shitur dy vite m\u00eb von\u00eb 6 mij\u00eb euro. N\u00eb p\u00ebrfundim, Kolegji vler\u00ebson se Prifti ka kryer deklarim t\u00eb rrem\u00eb n\u00eb t\u00eb dy rastet.<\/p>\n

Mendimi paralel<\/strong><\/p>\n

Gjyqtarja Ina Rama shprehet n\u00eb mendimin paralel se edhe pse ka votuar pro q\u00ebndrimit t\u00eb mbajtur n\u00eb vendimin e shumic\u00ebs p\u00ebr gjith\u00eb gjetjet, t\u00eb cilat sipas saj legjitimojn\u00eb l\u00ebnien n\u00eb fuqi t\u00eb vendimit t\u00eb KPK p\u00ebr shkarkimin e Priftit nga detyra, \u00ebsht\u00eb kund\u00ebr konsiderimit si shkak t\u00eb shkarkimit \u201cc\u00ebnimin e besimit t\u00eb publikut te sistemi i drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb.\u201d<\/p>\n

Rama arsyeton se Prifti i \u00ebsht\u00eb n\u00ebnshtruar procesit t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit dhe \u00ebsht\u00eb shkarkuar nga detyra, mb\u00ebshtetur n\u00eb kontrollin dhe vler\u00ebsimin e vet\u00ebm nj\u00eb kriteri, atij t\u00eb pasuris\u00eb. Sipas gjyqtares Rama, shkeljet e konstatuara nga Komisioni dhe Kolegji p\u00ebr kriterin e pasuris\u00eb, justifikojn\u00eb klasifikimin e ish\/gjyqtares Prifti n\u00eb kushtet e deklarimit t\u00eb pamjaftuesh\u00ebm q\u00eb mjafton shkarkimin e subjektit nga detyra.<\/p>\n

Por, gjyqtarja Ina Rama argumenton se p\u00ebr t\u00eb konkluduar n\u00ebse subjekti i rivler\u00ebsimit ka c\u00ebnuar besimin e publikut tek sistemi i drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb, duhet q\u00eb t\u00eb vler\u00ebsohet n\u00eb raport me t\u00eb tri kriteret.<\/p>\n

\u201cVendimi merret bazuar n\u00eb nj\u00eb ose disa prej kritereve, n\u00eb vler\u00ebsimin e p\u00ebrgjithsh\u00ebm t\u00eb tri kritereve, ose n\u00eb vler\u00ebsimin t\u00ebr\u00ebsor t\u00eb procedurave. Nd\u00ebrkoh\u00eb neni 61, pika 5 e ligjit nr. 84\/2016 q\u00eb rregullon c\u00ebnimin e besimit t\u00eb publikut te drejt\u00ebsia si nj\u00eb shkak autonom shkarkimi parashikon se: N\u00eb rast se nga vler\u00ebsimi t\u00ebr\u00ebsor, n\u00eb kuptim t\u00eb nenit 4, pika 2 e k\u00ebtij ligji, rezulton se subjekti i rivler\u00ebsimit ka c\u00ebnuar besimin e publikut te sistemi i drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb dhe ndodhet n\u00eb kushtet e pamund\u00ebsis\u00eb p\u00ebr plot\u00ebsimin e mang\u00ebsive n\u00ebp\u00ebrmjet programit t\u00eb trajnimit\u201d, arsyeton Rama.<\/p>\n

\u201cKjo dispozit\u00eb ka n\u00eb p\u00ebrb\u00ebrje t\u00eb saj \u00e7do situat\u00eb shkeljesh ligjore t\u00eb cilat, edhe n\u00ebn frym\u00ebn e neneve D, Dh dhe E t\u00eb Aneksit t\u00eb Kushtetut\u00ebs, p\u00ebrfaq\u00ebsojn\u00eb shkelje t\u00eb ligjit t\u00eb afta p\u00ebr t\u00eb shkaktuar vendosjen e mas\u00ebs disiplinore t\u00eb shkarkimit nga detyra n\u00eb raport me secilin prej kritereve t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit\u201d, shton ajo.<\/p>\n

Rama vler\u00ebson se n\u00eb rastet kur nuk gjenden shkaqe shkarkuese p\u00ebr secilin kriter ve\u00e7mas, at\u00ebher\u00eb organet e rivler\u00ebsimit kan\u00eb t\u00eb drejt\u00eb t\u00eb b\u00ebjn\u00eb vler\u00ebsim t\u00ebr\u00ebsor t\u00eb tri kritereve ose t\u00eb procedurave t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit, p\u00ebr t\u00eb matur apo indikuar c\u00ebnimin e besimit t\u00eb publikut te drejt\u00ebsia.<\/p>\n

\u201cMendoj se n\u00eb \u00e7do situat\u00eb faktike e ligjore p\u00ebr t\u00eb cil\u00ebn subjekti nuk klasifikohet n\u00eb asnj\u00ebr\u00ebn prej rasteve t\u00eb m\u00ebsip\u00ebrme t\u00eb shkarkimit nga detyra, pasi shkeljet e konstatuara t\u00eb ligjit nuk g\u00ebzojn\u00eb statusin e nj\u00eb shkeljeje q\u00eb mund t\u00eb shkaktoj\u00eb klasifikimin e saj sipas asnj\u00eb prej rasteve t\u00eb shkarkimit t\u00eb cituara m\u00eb lart, organet e rivler\u00ebsimit kan\u00eb t\u00eb drejt\u00eb t\u00eb b\u00ebjn\u00eb nj\u00eb vler\u00ebsim t\u00ebr\u00ebsor t\u00eb tri kritereve ose t\u00eb procedurave t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit, p\u00ebr t\u00eb matur apo indikuar c\u00ebnimin e besimit t\u00eb publikut te drejt\u00ebsia dhe p\u00ebr t\u00eb konkluduar n\u00ebse ky fenomen ka ndodhur n\u00eb rastin konkret dhe a \u00ebsht\u00eb ai n\u00eb nj\u00eb nivel q\u00eb t\u00eb prodhoj\u00eb vendosjen e mas\u00ebs disiplinore t\u00eb shkarkimit nga detyra\u201d, citohet n\u00eb mendimin paralel t\u00eb Ram\u00ebs.<\/p>\n

Ajo konsideron se, q\u00eb ky vler\u00ebsim i organeve t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit t\u00eb konkludoj\u00eb p\u00ebr vendosjen e nj\u00eb mase disiplinore, duhet t\u00eb shtrihet mbi t\u00eb tri kriteret e rivler\u00ebsimit dhe jo vet\u00ebm mbi nj\u00ebrin prej tyre.<\/p>\n

\u201cN\u00eb vler\u00ebsimin tim, p\u00ebrtej faktit q\u00eb n\u00eb secilin rast q\u00eb aplikohet nj\u00eb mas\u00eb disiplinore p\u00ebr secilin nga shkaqet e parashikuara n\u00eb pikat 1, 2, 3 e 4 t\u00eb nenit 61 t\u00eb ligjit nr. 84\/2016, c\u00ebnimi i besimit t\u00eb publikut \u00ebsht\u00eb i p\u00ebrfshir\u00eb nga vet\u00eb legjislatori n\u00eb ngritjen e k\u00ebtyre shkaqeve n\u00eb nivelin e krijimit t\u00eb pasoj\u00ebs q\u00eb lidhet me mas\u00ebn disiplinore, q\u00eb c\u00ebnimi i besimit t\u00eb publikut t\u00eb q\u00ebndroj\u00eb si nj\u00eb shkak m\u00eb vete shkarkimi dhe, n\u00eb munges\u00eb t\u00eb shkaqeve t\u00eb cilat n\u00eb m\u00ebnyr\u00eb autonome p\u00ebrb\u00ebjn\u00eb shkaqe p\u00ebr shkarkim, duhet q\u00eb subjekti t\u2019i n\u00ebnshtrohet vler\u00ebsimit n\u00eb t\u00eb tria kriteret e rivler\u00ebsimit\u201d, shprehet Rama duke theksuar se n\u00eb rrethanat e k\u00ebsaj \u00e7\u00ebshtje nuk mund t\u00eb aplikohet masa e shkarkimit e parashikuar nga neni 61 pika 5, e ligjit nr.84\/2016 p\u00ebr nj\u00eb subjekt p\u00ebr t\u00eb cilin procesi i rivler\u00ebsimit \u00ebsht\u00eb kryer mb\u00ebshtetur vet\u00ebm n\u00eb nj\u00ebrin prej kritereve.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

An\u00ebtar\u00ebt e trup\u00ebs gjykuese e KPA q\u00eb shqyrtoi ankimin e ish-kryetares s\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Apelit Kor\u00e7\u00eb, Entela Prifti ndajn\u00eb t\u00eb nj\u00ebjtin mendim se vendimi i KPK p\u00ebr shkarkimin e saj \u00ebsht\u00eb i drejt\u00eb, por gjyqtarja Ina Rama, ka mbajtur mendim paralel lidhur me cil\u00ebsimin e shkakut t\u00eb shkarkimit.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":637,"featured_media":75230,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[13,204,415,114,473],"tags":[744,305,107,112,221],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/www.reporter.al\/wp-content\/uploads\/entela-prifti1.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"Kryetarja e Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Apelit te Kor\u00e7\u00ebs, Entela Prifti, gjat\u00eb nj\u00eb seance te Komisionit t\u00eb Pavarur te Kualifikimit, KPK, | Foto nga : LSA","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75229"}],"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=75229"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75229\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":75231,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75229\/revisions\/75231"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/75230"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=75229"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=75229"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=75229"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}