{"id":75376,"date":"2020-02-14T15:39:35","date_gmt":"2020-02-14T14:39:35","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/cenoi-besimin-e-publikut-te-drejtesi-kpa-vulos-largimin-e-gjyqtarit-ahmet-jangulli\/2020\/02\/14\/"},"modified":"2023-04-07T04:33:09","modified_gmt":"2023-04-07T02:33:09","slug":"cenoi-besimin-e-publikut-te-drejtesi-kpa-vulos-largimin-e-gjyqtarit-ahmet-jangulli","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/cenoi-besimin-e-publikut-te-drejtesi-kpa-vulos-largimin-e-gjyqtarit-ahmet-jangulli\/2020\/02\/14\/","title":{"rendered":"\u201cC\u00ebnoi besimin e publikut te drejt\u00ebsi\u201d, KPA vulos largimin e gjyqtarit Ahmet Jangulli"},"content":{"rendered":"

Kolegji i Posa\u00e7\u00ebm i Apelimit gjeti probleme shkarkuese n\u00eb t\u00eb tri kriteret p\u00ebr ish-gjyqtarin e Gjykat\u00ebs Administrative t\u00eb Shkodr\u00ebs, Ahmet Jangulli, duke e rr\u00ebzuar ankimin e tij.<\/p>\n

\"\"
Gjyqtari i gjykat\u00ebs administrative t\u00eb Shkodr\u00ebs, Ahmet Jangulli n\u00eb seanc\u00ebn d\u00ebgjimore. Foto: Komisioni i Pavarur i Kualifikimit.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Kolegji i Posa\u00e7\u00ebm i Apelimit, KPA i ka gjetur t\u00eb drejta, n\u00eb m\u00eb t\u00eb shumt\u00ebn e rasteve, konstatimet e\u00a0 Komisionit t\u00eb Pavarur t\u00eb Kualifikimit, KPK gjat\u00eb procesit t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit t\u00eb gjyqtarit t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs Administrative t\u00eb Shkodr\u00ebs, Ahmet Jangulli, duke vulosur largimin e tij nga sistemi i drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb.<\/p>\n

Trupa gjykuese e KPA e p\u00ebrb\u00ebr\u00eb nga Luan Daci kryesues, Albana Shtylla relatore dhe Ina Rama, Sokol \u00c7omo e Ardian Hajdari an\u00ebtar\u00eb, ndajn\u00eb thuajse t\u00eb nj\u00ebjtin q\u00ebndrim me Komisionin p\u00ebr pasurin\u00eb dhe profesionalizimin, nd\u00ebrsa i dhan\u00eb pjes\u00ebrisht t\u00eb drejt\u00eb ish-gjyqtarit Jangulli sa i p\u00ebrket past\u00ebrtis\u00eb s\u00eb figur\u00ebs.<\/p>\n

Kolegji i ka rr\u00ebzuar si t\u00eb pabazuara pretendimet e gjyqtarit Jangulli p\u00ebr moszbatim t\u00eb procedurave t\u00eb parashikuara n\u00eb Kodin e Procedurave Administrative nga ana e Komisionit gjat\u00eb kryerjes s\u00eb hetimit administrativ. KPA nuk ka pranuar edhe k\u00ebrkes\u00ebn e subjektit p\u00ebr ta shqyrtuar \u00e7\u00ebshtjen n\u00eb prani t\u00eb tij, duke argumentuar se Jangulli nuk ka paraqitur akte n\u00eb funksion t\u00eb list\u00ebs s\u00eb provave t\u00eb cituara n\u00eb ankim.<\/p>\n

Jangulli u shkarkua nga KPK p\u00ebr shkelje n\u00eb t\u00eb tri kriteret n\u00eb tetor t\u00eb vitit 2018, vendimi i Komisionit u konfirmua nga KPA n\u00eb n\u00ebntor t\u00eb vitit 2019. Vendimi i zbardhur i Kolegjit tregon se shumica e \u00e7\u00ebshtjeve t\u00eb ankuara ishin rr\u00ebzuar dhe se ish-gjyqtari kishte \u201cc\u00ebnuar besimin e publikut te drejt\u00ebsia\u201d<\/p>\n

Munges\u00eb burimesh t\u00eb ligjshme<\/strong><\/p>\n

Kolegji fillimisht konsideroi t\u00eb pabazuar pretendimin e Jangullit, se \u00ebsht\u00eb hera e tret\u00eb q\u00eb i \u00ebsht\u00eb ushtruar kontrollit t\u00eb pasuris\u00eb, duke k\u00ebrkuar q\u00eb t\u00eb konsiderohet si di\u00e7ka e gjykuar. KPA arsyetoi se procesi i rivler\u00ebsimit ishte i ndrysh\u00ebm nga hetimet e b\u00ebra m\u00eb her\u00ebt nga ILDKPKI.<\/p>\n

Nd\u00ebrkoh\u00eb KPA gjeti se gjyqtari Jangulli ka munges\u00eb burimesh t\u00eb ligjshme financiare p\u00ebr blerjen e automjetit tip \u201cMercedes Benz\u201d n\u00eb vitin 2005 dhe ndryshe nga KPK thekson se vlera e balanc\u00ebs negative \u00ebsht\u00eb m\u00eb e madhe.<\/p>\n

N\u00eb vendimin e KPA thuhet se, Jangulli kund\u00ebrshton analiz\u00ebn e Komisionit p\u00ebr vler\u00ebn e shpenzimeve t\u00eb jetes\u00ebs, q\u00eb sipas tij duhet t\u00eb ishin 713.614 lek\u00eb dhe jo 803.571 lek\u00eb, sa \u00ebsht\u00eb p\u00ebrllogaritur.<\/p>\n

Lidhur me k\u00ebt\u00eb pretendim, Kolegji konstaton se subjekti ka pranuar se shpenzimet e tij jan\u00eb m\u00eb t\u00eb larta se ato mesatare t\u00eb jetes\u00ebs p\u00ebr nj\u00eb familje me 5 persona n\u00eb vitin 2005, q\u00eb bazuar n\u00eb t\u00eb dh\u00ebnat e INSTAT jan\u00eb p\u00ebrllogaritur n\u00eb vler\u00ebn 547.785 lek\u00eb.<\/p>\n

\u201cDuke qen\u00eb se vet\u00eb subjekti ka pranuar se shpenzimet e jetes\u00ebs s\u00eb familjes s\u00eb tij n\u00eb vitin 2005 kan\u00eb qen\u00eb n\u00eb vler\u00ebn 713.614 lek\u00eb, pra mbi nivelin mesatar, trupi gjykues arrin n\u00eb konkluzionin se Komisioni, n\u00eb analiz\u00ebn financiare p\u00ebr vitin 2005, duhet t\u00eb kishte konsideruar k\u00ebt\u00eb vler\u00eb shpenzimesh, t\u00eb deklaruar nga vet\u00eb subjekti\u201d, citohet n\u00eb vendimin e KPA.<\/p>\n

Kolegji vler\u00ebson se gjat\u00eb hetimit ka rezultuar e provuar se shpenzimet n\u00eb vler\u00ebn 568.203 lek\u00eb p\u00ebr blerjen e automjetit \u201cMercedes Benz\u201d, vit prodhimi 1995, gjyqtari i ka kryer deri m\u00eb dat\u00eb 8 n\u00ebntor 2005. Sipas KPA, Komisioni duhej ta kishte kryer analiz\u00ebn financiare duke p\u00ebrllogaritur t\u00eb ardhurat dhe shpenzimet e Jangullit p\u00ebr periudh\u00ebn 1 janar 2005 deri m\u00eb dat\u00eb 8 n\u00ebntor 2005. \u201cTrupi gjykues vler\u00ebson se mungesa e burimeve t\u00eb ligjshme financiare t\u00eb subjektit p\u00ebr blerjen e automjetit, do t\u00eb kishte nj\u00eb vler\u00eb m\u00eb t\u00eb lart\u00eb sesa ajo e konkluduar nga Komisioni n\u00eb vendim, n\u00ebse do t\u00eb ishte p\u00ebrllogaritur deri m\u00eb dat\u00ebn 8 n\u00ebntor 2005\u201d, citohet n\u00eb vendim.<\/p>\n

Kolegji i jep t\u00eb drejt\u00eb Komisionit q\u00eb konstaton se dh\u00ebnia e parave hua personave t\u00eb tret\u00eb n\u00eb vler\u00ebn totale 12 milion\u00eb lek\u00eb \u00ebsht\u00eb kryer kryesisht n\u00eb vitin 2014. Sipas Komisionit shumat 8 milion\u00eb dhe 2 milion\u00eb lek\u00eb jan\u00eb marr\u00eb n\u00eb vitin 2014, kurse nj\u00eb vler\u00eb tjet\u00ebr 2 milion\u00eb lek\u00eb, para disa vitesh.<\/p>\n

Trupa gjykuese e KPA nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb bindur nga shpjegimet e Jangullit i cili ka pretenduar se gjendjen n\u00eb lek\u00eb cash t\u00eb dh\u00ebna hua nuk e ka pasur t\u00eb shp\u00ebrndar\u00eb n\u00eb vitin 2014, por nd\u00ebr vite, duke pasur at\u00eb gjendje deri n\u00eb fundvitin 2016. \u201cKomisioni, p\u00ebr t\u00eb vler\u00ebsuar mund\u00ebsin\u00eb e subjektit p\u00ebr t\u00eb krijuar me burime t\u00eb ligjshme shumat e dh\u00ebna hua te miqt\u00eb e t\u00eb af\u00ebrmit e tij, analiz\u00ebn financiare e ka shtrir\u00eb n\u00eb periudh\u00ebn 2005-2012, n\u00eb kund\u00ebrshtim me sa pretendon subjekti\u2026\u201d, thuhet n\u00eb vendimin e KPA e cila vler\u00ebson m\u00eb tej se, konstatimi i Komisionit n\u00eb lidhje me periudh\u00ebn e huadh\u00ebnies, megjith\u00ebse i sakt\u00eb, nuk ka dh\u00ebn\u00eb asnj\u00eb rezultat n\u00eb analiz\u00ebn financiare.<\/p>\n

Trupi gjykues i KPA e konsideron t\u00eb provuar se Jangulli ka kryer deklarime kontradiktore gjat\u00eb procesit t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit n\u00eb lidhje me fitimin e realizuar nga bashk\u00ebshortja e tij nga aktiviteti si notere publike me q\u00ebllim q\u00eb t\u00eb rriste fiktivisht t\u00eb ardhurat. \u201cN\u00eb verifikim dhe analiz\u00eb t\u00eb k\u00ebtyre deklarimeve kontradiktore, trupi gjykues arrin n\u00eb konkluzionin se subjekti ka kryer veprime fiktive n\u00eb vite, p\u00ebr t\u00eb rritur t\u00eb ardhurat nga fitimi i aktivitetit t\u00eb bashk\u00ebshortes dhe, p\u00ebr rrjedhoj\u00eb, edhe p\u00ebr deklarimet e likuiditeteve cash n\u00eb deklaratat periodike t\u00eb pasuris\u00eb dhe n\u00eb deklarat\u00ebn e pasuris\u00eb s\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit, p\u00ebr t\u00eb justifikuar vlerat e tyre\u201d, citohet n\u00eb vendim ku theksohet se n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb rast Jangulli ka kryer veprime q\u00eb c\u00ebnojn\u00eb besimin e publikut te sistemi i drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb.<\/p>\n

Gjyqtari Jangulli pretendoi n\u00eb ankim se Komisioni n\u00eb analiz\u00ebn financiare p\u00ebr periudh\u00ebn 2005-2012 nuk i ka p\u00ebrllogaritur drejt shpenzimet e jetes\u00ebs p\u00ebr familjen e tij duke pasqyruar p\u00ebr vitet 2005, 2006 dhe 2007 shpenzime jetese n\u00eb vlera m\u00eb t\u00eb vogla sesa ato t\u00eb konsideruara nga KPK, nd\u00ebrsa p\u00ebr vitet 2008-2012, vlera m\u00eb t\u00eb larta.<\/p>\n

Pavar\u00ebsisht se trupi gjykues i KPA vler\u00ebson se Komisioni n\u00eb analiz\u00ebn financiare p\u00ebr vitet 2005-2012 duhet t\u00eb kishte konsideruar si vlera p\u00ebr shpenzimet e jetes\u00ebs s\u00eb familjes s\u00eb subjektit, ato t\u00eb deklaruara prej tij, rezultati p\u00ebr t\u00eb nj\u00ebjt\u00ebn periudh\u00eb edhe pse n\u00eb vler\u00eb m\u00eb t\u00eb vog\u00ebl\u00a0 \u00ebsht\u00eb n\u00eb vler\u00eb negative, n\u00eb total n\u00eb vler\u00ebn – 6.057.961 lek\u00eb.<\/p>\n

Ashtu si edhe KPK, Kolegji arrin n\u00eb p\u00ebrfundimin se Jangulli ka kryer deklarim t\u00eb pamjaftuesh\u00ebm n\u00eb deklarat\u00ebn e pasuris\u00eb s\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit, p\u00ebr shkak t\u00eb mosdeklarimit t\u00eb detyrimit t\u00eb bashk\u00ebshortes s\u00eb tij n\u00eb lidhje me kredin\u00eb e marr\u00eb prej saj. Mbi pretendimin e gjyqtarit Jangulli, se bashk\u00ebshortja e tij \u00ebsht\u00eb trajtuar gabim si bashk\u00ebkredimarr\u00ebse pasi ka qen\u00eb dor\u00ebzan\u00ebse, Kolegji arsyetoi se subjekti duhet ta kishte deklaruar k\u00ebt\u00eb kredi, sepse \u201cde jure\u201d personi i lidhur figuron debitore.<\/p>\n

Pa lidhje me krimin e organizuar<\/strong><\/p>\n

Megjithat\u00eb KPA vler\u00ebsoi ndryshe nga KPK n\u00eb lidhje me kriterin e kontrollit t\u00eb figur\u00ebs dhe me kontaktet e pap\u00ebrshtatshme. Kolegji konsideron se nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb provuar q\u00eb subjekti i rivler\u00ebsimit t\u00eb ket\u00eb pasur kontakte t\u00eb pap\u00ebrshtatshme me persona t\u00eb p\u00ebrfshir\u00eb n\u00eb krimin e organizuar.<\/p>\n

Sipas KPA Jangulli nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb n\u00eb kushtet e pap\u00ebrshtatshm\u00ebris\u00eb dhe p\u00ebr k\u00ebt\u00eb arsye e gjen t\u00eb drejt\u00eb pretendimin e tij se nuk ka kryer deklarim t\u00eb pamjaftuesh\u00ebm p\u00ebr kriterin e kontrollit t\u00eb figur\u00ebs.<\/p>\n

Por, Kolegji konsideron se Jangulli ka c\u00ebnuar besimin e publikut tek sistemi i drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb dhe se me veprimet procedurale q\u00eb ka kryer gjat\u00eb shqyrtimit t\u00eb nj\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtje gjyq\u00ebsore ka favorizuar nj\u00eb t\u00eb pandehur. \u201cVeprimet procedurale t\u00eb subjektit t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit, n\u00eb cil\u00ebsin\u00eb e gjyqtarit t\u00eb vet\u00ebm t\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtjes, n\u00eb shkelje t\u00eb dispozitave p\u00ebrkat\u00ebse t\u00eb Kodit t\u00eb Procedur\u00ebs Penale, duket se kan\u00eb favorizuar t\u00eb pandehurin M.S. n\u00eb munges\u00eb, p\u00ebr t\u00eb cilin n\u00eb p\u00ebrfundim t\u00eb gjykimit, gjykata me vendimin nr. {***}, dat\u00eb 08.11.2004, ka shpallur pafaj\u00ebsin\u00eb\u201d, thuhet n\u00eb vendimin e KPA.<\/p>\n

Vler\u00ebsimi profesional<\/strong><\/p>\n

KPA ashtu si edhe KPK arrin n\u00eb p\u00ebrfundimin se Jangulli ka kryer shkelje t\u00eb standardeve t\u00eb etik\u00ebs dhe t\u00eb rregullave t\u00eb sjelljes s\u00eb magjistratit n\u00ebp\u00ebrmjet komunikimit t\u00eb pap\u00ebrshtatsh\u00ebm me pal\u00ebt n\u00eb proces. Komisioni ka analizuar nj\u00eb ankes\u00eb ndaj Jangullit lidhur me komunikimin e tij gjat\u00eb nj\u00eb seance gjyq\u00ebsore, nga ku \u00ebsht\u00eb konkluduar se ai identifikohet si nj\u00eb magjistrat me sjellje t\u00eb pap\u00ebrshtatshme q\u00eb d\u00ebmton figur\u00ebn e tij.<\/p>\n

Pretendimi i Jangullit se komunikimi i tij n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb rast ka qen\u00eb krejt korrekt dhe se nuk mund t\u00eb gjenden sjellje t\u00eb pap\u00ebrshtatshme q\u00eb d\u00ebmtojn\u00eb figur\u00ebn e magjistratit, \u00ebsht\u00eb rr\u00ebzuar nga KPA.<\/p>\n

\u201c\u2026Subjekti i rivler\u00ebsimit, n\u00eb cil\u00ebsin\u00eb e kryesuesit t\u00eb seanc\u00ebs gjyq\u00ebsore si gjyqtar i vet\u00ebm, i drejtohet padit\u00ebsit me nj\u00eb komunikim t\u00eb ashp\u00ebr, tone t\u00eb larta dhe shprehje jo t\u00eb denja p\u00ebr sall\u00ebn e gjyqit dhe p\u00ebr etik\u00ebn e gjyqtarit. Edhe pas nxjerrjes s\u00eb padit\u00ebsit jasht\u00eb sall\u00ebs s\u00eb gjyqit, komunikimi i subjektit ka vazhduar t\u00eb jet\u00eb joetik edhe me pal\u00ebn e paditur\u201d, argumenton Kolegji.<\/p>\n

\u201cTrupi gjykues e gjen t\u00eb drejt\u00eb konkluzionin e Komisionit n\u00eb vendim, se subjekti ka kryer shkelje t\u00eb standardeve t\u00eb etik\u00ebs dhe rregullave t\u00eb sjelljes s\u00eb magjistratit n\u00ebp\u00ebrmjet komunikimit t\u00eb pap\u00ebrshtatsh\u00ebm me pal\u00ebt n\u00eb proces, duke c\u00ebnuar besimin e publikut te sistemi i drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb\u201d, theksohet n\u00eb vendimin e KPA.<\/p>\n

N\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb kriter Kolegji arsyetoi se \u201cn\u00eb baz\u00eb t\u00eb t\u00eb gjithave rrethanave dhe kushteve t\u00eb analizuara p\u00ebr kriterin e profesionalizmit, parregullsit\u00eb e konstatuara jan\u00eb t\u00eb asaj natyre dhe asaj shkalle, q\u00eb provojn\u00eb se subjekti i rivler\u00ebsimit ka treguar cil\u00ebsi t\u00eb papranueshme n\u00eb pun\u00eb, gjykim t\u00eb dob\u00ebt, nuk ka respektuar normalisht t\u00eb drejtat e pal\u00ebve, nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb efektiv, n\u00eb at\u00eb shkall\u00eb sa programi i trajnimit pran\u00eb Shkoll\u00ebs s\u00eb Magjistratur\u00ebs nuk mund ta zgjidh\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtje p\u00ebr nj\u00eb vit\u201d.<\/p>\n

Duke gjetur t\u00eb pabazuar ankimin Kolegji vendosi n\u00eb fund se jangulli nuk mund t\u00eb ishte m\u00eb pjes\u00eb e sistemit t\u00eb drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb.\u00a0 \u201cN\u00eb p\u00ebrfundim t\u00eb shqyrtimit t\u00eb t\u00eb gjitha shkaqeve t\u00eb ankimit dhe bazuar n\u00eb konkluzionet si m\u00eb sip\u00ebr, trupi gjykues \u00e7mon se vendimi i Komisionit t\u00eb Pavarur t\u00eb Kualifikimit nr. 67, dat\u00eb 05.10.2018, \u00ebsht\u00eb i drejt\u00eb dhe duhet l\u00ebn\u00eb n\u00eb fuqi\u201d, p\u00ebrfundon trupa gjykuese e KPA.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Kolegji i Posa\u00e7\u00ebm i Apelimit gjeti probleme shkarkuese n\u00eb t\u00eb tri kriteret p\u00ebr ish-gjyqtarin e Gjykat\u00ebs Administrative t\u00eb Shkodr\u00ebs, Ahmet Jangulli, duke e rr\u00ebzuar ankimin e tij.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":637,"featured_media":75377,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[13,114,362],"tags":[756,432,107,112],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/www.reporter.al\/wp-content\/uploads\/Ahmet-Jangulli-ne-gjyq.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"Gjyqtari i gjykat\u00ebs administrative t\u00eb Shkodr\u00ebs, Ahmet Jangulli n\u00eb seanc\u00ebn d\u00ebgjimore. Foto: Komisioni i Pavarur i Kualifikimit. ","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75376"}],"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=75376"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75376\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":75378,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75376\/revisions\/75378"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/75377"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=75376"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=75376"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=75376"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}