{"id":75370,"date":"2020-02-18T19:12:52","date_gmt":"2020-02-18T18:12:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/kolegji-degjoi-argumentet-perfundimtare-ne-seancen-per-prokurorin-besnik-cani\/2020\/02\/18\/"},"modified":"2023-04-07T04:32:24","modified_gmt":"2023-04-07T02:32:24","slug":"kolegji-degjoi-argumentet-perfundimtare-ne-seancen-per-prokurorin-besnik-cani","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/kolegji-degjoi-argumentet-perfundimtare-ne-seancen-per-prokurorin-besnik-cani\/2020\/02\/18\/","title":{"rendered":"Kolegji d\u00ebgjoi argumentet p\u00ebrfundimtare n\u00eb seanc\u00ebn p\u00ebr prokurorin Besnik Cani"},"content":{"rendered":"

Komisioneri Publik dhe mbrojtja e an\u00ebtarit t\u00eb KLP, Besnik Cani ngrit\u00ebn pretendime t\u00eb ndryshme mbi t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn e pal\u00ebve p\u00ebr t\u00eb ankimuar nj\u00eb pjes\u00eb t\u00eb vendimit t\u00eb KPK-s\u00eb mbi profesionalizmin. Komisioneri k\u00ebmb\u00ebnguli n\u00eb shkarkimin e Canit, nd\u00ebrsa mbrojtja n\u00eb konfirmimin e tij n\u00eb detyr\u00eb.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
An\u00ebtari i KLP-s\u00eb, Besnik Cani pas seanc\u00ebs s\u00eb par\u00eb n\u00eb Kolegjin e Posa\u00e7\u00ebm t\u00eb Apelimit. Foto: LSA<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

N\u00eb nj\u00eb debat gjyq\u00ebsor me ngjyra, k\u00ebrkesa ndjese dhe ironi mbi leximin e ligjit, Komisioneri Publik i k\u00ebrkoi Kolegjit q\u00eb t\u00eb shkarkonte prokurorin dhe an\u00ebtarin e K\u00ebshillit t\u00eb Lart\u00eb t\u00eb Prokuroris\u00eb, Besnik Cani, nd\u00ebrsa mbrojtja e k\u00ebtij t\u00eb fundit pretendoi se ankimi ishte n\u00eb shkelje t\u00eb ligjit dhe se vendimi i Komisionit t\u00eb Pavarur t\u00eb Kualifikimit duhej t\u00eb mbetej i pandryshuar.<\/p>\n

Debati t\u00eb mart\u00ebn n\u00eb Kolegjin e Posa\u00e7\u00ebm t\u00eb Apelimit u fokusua kryesisht mbi t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn p\u00ebr t\u00eb ankimuar nj\u00eb pjes\u00eb t\u00eb vendimit t\u00eb Komisionit t\u00eb Pavarur t\u00eb Kualifikimit, i cili d\u00ebrgonte disa prej gjetjeve n\u00eb kriterin e profesionalizmit p\u00ebr vler\u00ebsim disiplinor pran\u00eb Inspektoriatit t\u00eb Lart\u00eb t\u00eb Drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb.<\/p>\n

N\u00eb ligj thuhet se d\u00ebrgimi i \u00e7\u00ebshtjeve p\u00ebr procedim disiplinor nuk mund t\u00eb ankohet. Por pal\u00ebt n\u00eb Kolegj mbajt\u00ebn q\u00ebndrime t\u00eb ndryshme mbi k\u00ebt\u00eb pik\u00eb, nd\u00ebrsa Komisioneri k\u00ebrkoi q\u00eb Kolegji t\u00eb dilte me nj\u00eb vendim q\u00eb t\u00eb aplikohej edhe mbi vendime t\u00eb tjera t\u00eb ngjashme t\u00eb Komisionit dhe t\u2019i kufizonte k\u00ebtij mund\u00ebsin\u00eb p\u00ebr referime disiplinore.<\/p>\n

P\u00ebrtej k\u00ebsaj pike, pal\u00ebt mbajt\u00ebn q\u00ebndrimet fillestare n\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtje.<\/p>\n

Komisioneri Florjan Ballhysa tha se Cani duhej t\u00eb shkarkohej, p\u00ebr deklarim t\u00eb pamjaftuesh\u00ebm t\u00eb pasuris\u00eb, c\u00ebnim t\u00eb besimit t\u00eb publikut te drejt\u00ebsia dhe probleme t\u00eb profesionalizmit. Ballhysa k\u00ebmb\u00ebnguli se Cani nuk kishte provuar t\u00eb kund\u00ebrt\u00ebn e barr\u00ebs s\u00eb prov\u00ebs p\u00ebr pasurin\u00eb, nd\u00ebrsa nuk kishte dh\u00ebn\u00eb asnj\u00eb shpjegim t\u00eb ndrysh\u00ebm sa i p\u00ebrket 4 \u00e7\u00ebshtjeve n\u00eb kriterin e profesionalizmit.<\/p>\n

Nga ana e vet, Cani u mbrojt duke b\u00ebr\u00eb nj\u00eb p\u00ebrshkrim t\u00eb pun\u00ebs p\u00ebr disa vite, nd\u00ebrsa k\u00ebmb\u00ebnguli se kishte punuar me \u201cdinjitet dhe ndershm\u00ebri\u201d dhe k\u00ebrkoi t\u00eb vijonte n\u00eb detyr\u00eb. Ai po ashtu k\u00ebrkoi ndjes\u00eb n\u00ebse \u201ckishte fyer dik\u00ebnd me k\u00ebto k\u00ebrkesa (nga an\u00ebtar\u00eb t\u00eb trupit gjykues)\u201d, duke iu referuar k\u00ebrkesave p\u00ebr p\u00ebrjashtim, kall\u00ebzimit penal dhe ankimit p\u00ebr vlefshm\u00ebrin\u00eb e mandatit t\u00eb dy an\u00ebtar\u00ebve t\u00eb KPA. Cani tha se k\u00ebto k\u00ebrkesa ishin b\u00ebr\u00eb se ai besonte te zbatimi i ligjit.<\/p>\n

Avokati i tij, ish-ministri i Drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb Eduard Halimi ishte ironik, si ndaj trup\u00ebs pas nj\u00eb vendimi t\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebm, ashtu edhe ndaj komisionerit, kryesisht mbi p\u00ebrllogaritjen e bilancit negativ dhe argumenteve mbi t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn e ankimit p\u00ebr 4 \u00e7\u00ebshtje t\u00eb p\u00ebrfshira n\u00eb kriterin e profesionalizmit.<\/p>\n

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

Besnik Cani e kaloi faz\u00ebn e par\u00eb t\u00eb vetingut m\u00eb 27 n\u00ebntor 2018, ndon\u00ebse 4 \u00e7\u00ebshtje q\u00eb lidheshin me etik\u00ebn dhe profesionalizmin u d\u00ebrguan p\u00ebr inspektim nga Komisioni i Pavarur i Kualifikimit. Operacioni Nd\u00ebrkomb\u00ebtar i Monitorimit k\u00ebrkoi ankimin e vendimit p\u00ebrmes nj\u00eb rekomandimi, nd\u00ebrsa Komisioneri Publik k\u00ebrkon n\u00eb Kolegj shkarkimin e tij. N\u00eb Kolegj, Cani po gjykohet nga trupa e drejtuar nga Rezarta Schuetz, me relator Ardian Hajdarin dhe an\u00ebtar\u00eb Albana Shtylla, Luan Daci dhe Sokol \u00c7omo.<\/p>\n

Cani pati pretenduar q\u00eb n\u00eb fillim t\u00eb procesit se kat\u00ebr \u00e7\u00ebshtjet q\u00eb KPK i kishte adresuar p\u00ebr procedim disiplinor nuk duhej t\u00eb pranoheshin n\u00eb ankim, p\u00ebr shkak se kjo ndalohej nga ligji.<\/p>\n

N\u00eb p\u00ebrballjen e fundit gjat\u00eb dh\u00ebnies s\u00eb konkluzioneve Komisioneri Publik mbrojti iden\u00eb se t\u00eb gjitha \u00e7\u00ebshtjet ndaj prokurorit ishin t\u00eb apelueshme dhe se ky pretendim i tij nuk duhej t\u00eb merrej parasysh. Sipas Komisionerit, e drejta e tij p\u00ebr t\u00eb ankuar nuk c\u00ebnohej nga kjo vendimmarrje e KPK dhe si nj\u00eb prej institucioneve n\u00eb procesin e rivler\u00ebsimit dhe n\u00eb mbrojtje t\u00eb interesit publik ai kishte t\u00eb drejt\u00eb t\u00eb ankimonte \u00e7\u00ebshtjet e d\u00ebrguara p\u00ebr procedim disiplinor, kur besonte se vendimi i KPK nuk ishte marr\u00eb n\u00eb p\u00ebrputhje me ligjin.<\/p>\n

Sipas Ballhys\u00ebs, kur Komisioneri Publik \u201ckonstaton se vendimmarrja e Komisionit nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb marr\u00eb n\u00eb p\u00ebrputhje me ligjin dhe nuk mb\u00ebshtet n\u00eb prova apo subjekti nuk plot\u00ebson kushtet q\u00eb t\u00eb p\u00ebrligj\u00eb konfirmimin t\u00eb tij n\u00eb detyr\u00eb\u201d, ajo vendimmarrje duhej t\u00eb apelohej. Komisioneri k\u00ebrkon q\u00eb KPA t\u2019i shqyrtoj\u00eb k\u00ebto \u00e7\u00ebshtje brenda \u201cjuridiksionit kontrollues dhe rivler\u00ebsues t\u00eb Kolegjit\u201d.<\/p>\n

Komisioneri tha se kat\u00ebr \u00e7\u00ebshtjet; marr\u00ebdh\u00ebnia kontraktuale me kompanin\u00eb Kastrati p\u00ebr nj\u00eb karburant, marrja e statusit si i pastreh\u00eb n\u00eb Fier n\u00eb koh\u00ebn kur kishte nj\u00eb hetim p\u00ebr abuzimet me k\u00ebt\u00eb status nga prokuroria q\u00eb drejtonte dhe dy \u00e7\u00ebshtje penale n\u00eb prokurorit\u00eb e Elbasanit dhe Tiran\u00ebs, duhej t\u00eb shqyrtoheshin n\u00eb KPA si pjes\u00eb e rivler\u00ebsimit t\u00eb Canit. Komisioneri tha se n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb rast Cani nuk kalonte kriterin e aft\u00ebsive profesionale dhe se kishte c\u00ebnuar besimin te drejt\u00ebsia.<\/p>\n

Avokati i Canit kund\u00ebrshtoi pretendimin e Komisionerit, nd\u00ebrsa pretendoi se ligji n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb pik\u00eb ishte i qart\u00eb. Ai tha se vendimi i KPK p\u00ebr t\u00eb kaluar nj\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtje p\u00ebr procedim disiplinor\u00eb ishte i pa apeluesh\u00ebm. Duke iu referuar nenit 59 t\u00eb ligjit p\u00ebr rivler\u00ebsimin Halimi lexoi disa her\u00eb pjes\u00ebn: \u201cNdaj k\u00ebtij vendimi nuk mund t\u00eb b\u00ebhet ankim\u201d dhe ironizoi duke th\u00ebn\u00eb se nj\u00eb lexim ndryshe i k\u00ebsaj fjalie nuk mund ta b\u00ebnte asnj\u00eb 10 vje\u00e7ar\u00eb.<\/p>\n

Halimi kund\u00ebrshtoi pretendimin e Komisionerit se ky kufizim ishte vet\u00ebm p\u00ebr subjektin. Ai tha se kjo do t\u00eb c\u00ebnonte barazin\u00eb e arm\u00ebve n\u00eb proces, nd\u00ebrsa tha se i referohej kat\u00ebr vendimeve t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Strasburgut, t\u00eb cil\u00ebn e quajti \u201cSupergjykata\u201d mbi t\u00eb drejtat e pal\u00ebve. Halimi po ashtu kund\u00ebrshtoi pretendimet e komisionerit se kat\u00ebr \u00e7\u00ebshtjet \u00e7onin n\u00eb shkarkimin e Canit. Ai tha se kontrata e karburantit ishte ajo q\u00eb aplikohej n\u00eb t\u00eb gjith\u00eb ballkanin, k\u00ebmb\u00ebnguli se vler\u00ebsimi profesional nuk mund t\u00eb b\u00ebhej vet\u00ebm mbi dy \u00e7\u00ebshtje dhe tha se k\u00ebto veprime t\u00eb Canit nuk kishin sjell\u00eb pasoja.<\/p>\n

Halimi rip\u00ebrs\u00ebriti q\u00ebndrimin e Canit se n\u00ebse kontrata me Kastratin gjendej n\u00eb konflikt interesi ai ishte gati t\u00eb hiqte dor\u00eb nga ajo, nd\u00ebrsa theksoi se ILDKPKI i kishte th\u00ebn\u00eb prokurorit se kontrata nuk kishte probleme.<\/p>\n

Pal\u00ebt iur referuan n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb pik\u00eb edhe q\u00ebndrimeve dhe rolit t\u00eb Operacionit Nd\u00ebrkomb\u00ebtar t\u00eb Monitorimit. Komisioneri iu referuar rekormandimit t\u00eb ONM p\u00ebr rastin e drejtueses s\u00eb prokuroris\u00eb s\u00eb Durr\u00ebsit, n\u00eb t\u00eb cilin ONM arsyeton se kur vendimi i KPK konsiderohej i gabuar dhe Komisioneri arsyetonte se shkeljet ishin shkarkuese nuk mund t\u00eb aplikohej ndalimi i parashikuar p\u00ebr ankim n\u00eb nenin 59.<\/p>\n

ONM n\u00eb rekomandim specifikisht shprehet se ankimi n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb pik\u00eb i ndalohej vet\u00ebm subjektit. Nd\u00ebrsa thekson se mosmarrja parasysh e ankimit n\u00eb pikat e trasferuara p\u00ebr procedim disiplinor\u00eb kur Komisioneri kishte bindjen se shkeljet ishin shkarkuese dhe nuk duhej t\u00eb kishin shkuar p\u00ebr procedim disiplinor\u00eb vendoste n\u00eb rrezik rolin kushtetues t\u00eb Kolegjit t\u00eb Apelimit.<\/p>\n

Por Halimi kund\u00ebrshtoi referimin te ONM. Ai citoi nj\u00eb opinion t\u00eb dh\u00ebn\u00eb nga Komisioni Europian p\u00ebr Gjykat\u00ebn e Strasburgut, n\u00eb t\u00eb cilin thuhej se roli i v\u00ebzhguesve nd\u00ebrkomb\u00ebtar ishte ve\u00e7 garantimit t\u00eb procesit edhe garantimi q\u00eb subjekteve do u respektoheshin t\u00eb drejtat.<\/p>\n

Ballhysa n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb pik\u00eb shtroi p\u00ebr Kolegjin edhe disa pyetje, me an\u00eb t\u00eb t\u00eb cilave k\u00ebrkon interpretim t\u00eb vendimeve t\u00eb KPK p\u00ebr referime disiplinore dhe po ashtu synon t\u00eb vendos\u00eb nj\u00eb kufizim mbi sasin\u00eb e \u00e7\u00ebshtjeve q\u00eb mund t\u00eb referohen nga KPK n\u00eb organe t\u00eb tjera.<\/p>\n

Nd\u00ebr t\u00eb tjera Komisioneri i shtroi Kolegjit si pyetje n\u00ebse mundej KPK t\u00eb hiqte dor\u00eb nga juridiksioni rivler\u00ebsues, a duhej t\u00eb kishte nj\u00eb proces vler\u00ebsimi paraprak p\u00ebr t\u00eb identifikuar shkaqet q\u00eb p\u00ebrb\u00ebjn\u00eb shkelje disiplinore dhe n\u00ebse duhej apo jo t\u00eb kishte nj\u00eb kufizim mbi numrin e praktoikave q\u00eb d\u00ebrkoheshin p\u00ebr procedim disiplinor\u00eb.<\/p>\n

Nd\u00ebrkoh\u00eb Komisioneri Publik tha gjat\u00eb leximit t\u00eb q\u00ebndrimit t\u00eb tij se Cani nuk kishte provuar t\u00eb kund\u00ebrt\u00ebn sa i p\u00ebrket pamjaftueshm\u00ebris\u00eb s\u00eb burimeve t\u00eb ligjshme t\u00eb pasuris\u00eb. Komisioneri tha se Cani kishte munges\u00eb burimesh prej 2 milion lek\u00ebsh dhe se kishte b\u00ebr\u00eb deklarime t\u00eb pasakta, sa i p\u00ebrket disa prej pasurive t\u00eb marra n\u00eb shqyrtim.<\/p>\n

P\u00ebrkund\u00ebr k\u00ebtij q\u00ebndrimi vet\u00eb Cani dhe m\u00eb pas Halimi k\u00ebmb\u00ebngul\u00ebn se pasuria e prokurorit ishte modeste dhe burimet e ligjshme t\u00eb provuara. Ata k\u00ebrkuan t\u00eb mbahej parasysh \u201cparimi i dyfishit t\u00eb pasuris\u00eb\u201d dhe gjithashtu i cil\u00ebsuan pretendimet e Komisionerit p\u00ebr pamjaftueshm\u00ebri si spekulime.<\/p>\n

N\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb moment pati edhe nj\u00eb \u201cp\u00ebrplasje\u201d mes Halimit dhe KPA. Halimi k\u00ebrkoi q\u00eb t\u00eb merrej si prov\u00eb e re nj\u00eb mandat bankar\u00eb q\u00eb provonte sipas mbrojtjes nj\u00eb shum\u00eb prej 6 mij\u00eb euro t\u00eb v\u00ebn\u00eb n\u00eb diskutim nga Komisioneri.\u00a0 Ky i fundit u shpreh se nuk ishte kund\u00ebr marrjes s\u00eb prov\u00ebs, pavar\u00ebsisht se procesi ishte mbyllur, por shtoi se fatura e pretenduar nuk ishte e nj\u00ebjt\u00eb me 6 mij\u00eb eurot q\u00eb ai pretendonte se nuk justifikoheshin.<\/p>\n

KPA n\u00eb nj\u00eb vendim t\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebm vendosi t\u00eb mos e pranonte prov\u00ebn, duke arsyetuar se Cani e kishte pasur n\u00eb dor\u00eb mandatin q\u00eb n\u00eb n\u00ebntor t\u00eb vitit q\u00eb shkoi dhe mund ta kishte depozituar at\u00eb n\u00eb \u00e7do moment. Halimi e ironizoi k\u00ebt\u00eb vendim si t\u00eb habitsh\u00ebm, pasi sipas tij p\u00ebr ta pranuar kishin qen\u00eb dakord t\u00eb dyja pal\u00ebt.<\/p>\n

N\u00eb fjal\u00ebn e tij Cani i k\u00ebrkoi KPA q\u00eb t\u00eb merrte parasysh karrier\u00ebn e tij t\u00eb gjat\u00eb dhe pun\u00ebn q\u00eb ai kishte b\u00ebr\u00eb. Ai tha se kishte nj\u00eb pasuri modeste, p\u00ebr nj\u00eb pjes\u00eb t\u00eb t\u00eb cil\u00ebs ende paguante k\u00ebste kredie dhe k\u00ebmb\u00ebnguli se po i n\u00ebnshtrohej nj\u00eb procesi m\u00eb t\u00eb rrept\u00eb se koleg\u00ebt jo magjistrat\u00eb n\u00eb KLP t\u00eb cil\u00ebt nuk kishin kaluar n\u00eb dy faza rivler\u00ebsimi.<\/p>\n

N\u00eb fund Komisioneri k\u00ebrkoi shkarkimin e Canit bazuar n\u00eb tre pika t\u00eb nenit 61 t\u00eb ligjit p\u00ebr rivler\u00ebsimin kalimtar\u00eb. Ai tha se Cani duhej t\u00eb shkarkohej p\u00ebr \u201cdeklarim t\u00eb pamjaftuesh\u00ebm t\u00eb pasuris\u00eb\u201d, se ishte \u201ci pap\u00ebrshtatsh\u00ebm n\u00eb nivelin e aft\u00ebsive profesionale\u201d dhe se \u201ckishte c\u00ebnuar besimin e publikut te drejt\u00ebsia\u201d.<\/p>\n

Nga ana tjet\u00ebr Halimi dhe vet\u00eb Cani k\u00ebrkuan l\u00ebnien n\u00eb fuqi t\u00eb vendimit t\u00eb KPK dhe konfirmimin e prokurorit. Kolegji vendosi q\u00eb t\u00eb shpall\u00eb vendimin m\u00eb 27 shkurt n\u00eb or\u00ebn 10.00.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Komisioneri Publik dhe mbrojtja e an\u00ebtarit t\u00eb KLP, Besnik Cani ngrit\u00ebn pretendime t\u00eb ndryshme mbi t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn e pal\u00ebve p\u00ebr t\u00eb ankimuar nj\u00eb pjes\u00eb t\u00eb vendimit t\u00eb KPK-s\u00eb mbi profesionalizmin. Komisioneri k\u00ebmb\u00ebnguli n\u00eb shkarkimin e Canit, nd\u00ebrsa mbrojtja n\u00eb konfirmimin e tij n\u00eb detyr\u00eb.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":97,"featured_media":75371,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[415,114,2,362],"tags":[234,112,119],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/www.reporter.al\/wp-content\/uploads\/thumbnail_PHOTO-2020-01-08-10-16-52.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"Ish-an\u00ebtari i KLP-s\u00eb, Besnik Cani pas seanc\u00ebs s\u00eb par\u00eb n\u00eb Kolegjin e Posa\u00e7\u00ebm t\u00eb Apelimit. Foto: LSA ","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75370"}],"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=75370"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75370\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":75372,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75370\/revisions\/75372"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/75371"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=75370"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=75370"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=75370"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}