{"id":75481,"date":"2020-01-17T16:46:23","date_gmt":"2020-01-17T15:46:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/gjykimi-mbi-etiken-dhe-kredine-e-bute-ndan-kolegjin-per-ervin-metallen\/2020\/01\/17\/"},"modified":"2023-04-07T04:51:26","modified_gmt":"2023-04-07T02:51:26","slug":"gjykimi-mbi-etiken-dhe-kredine-e-bute-ndan-kolegjin-per-ervin-metallen","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/gjykimi-mbi-etiken-dhe-kredine-e-bute-ndan-kolegjin-per-ervin-metallen\/2020\/01\/17\/","title":{"rendered":"Gjykimi mbi etik\u00ebn dhe kredin\u00eb e but\u00eb ndajn\u00eb Kolegjin p\u00ebr Ervin Metall\u00ebn"},"content":{"rendered":"

Shumica n\u00eb KPA la n\u00eb fuqi vendimin e shkall\u00ebs s\u00eb par\u00eb p\u00ebr shkarkimin e ish-gjyqtarit t\u00eb Apelit, Ervin Metalla duke i shtuar atij si shkelje edhe \u201cc\u00ebnimin e besimit te drejt\u00ebsia\u201d. Dy gjyqtaret n\u00eb pakic\u00eb k\u00ebrkuan prishjen e vendimit t\u00eb KPK-s\u00eb dhe rivler\u00ebsimin e gjyqtarit p\u00ebr dy kriteret e tjera.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Ish-gjyqtari i Apelit t\u00eb Tiran\u00ebs, Ervin Metalla pas procesit n\u00eb KPK. Foto:LSA<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Fiktiviteti apo jo i veprimeve t\u00eb ish-gjytarit Ervin Metalla n\u00eb p\u00ebrfitimin e nj\u00eb kredie t\u00eb but\u00eb prej 5 milion\u00eb lek\u00ebsh p\u00ebr t\u00eb bler\u00eb nj\u00eb apartament n\u00eb Tiran\u00eb dhe nj\u00eb s\u00ebr\u00eb veprimesh bankare dhe kontratash p\u00ebr k\u00ebt\u00eb q\u00ebllim, ka ndar\u00eb trup\u00ebn n\u00eb Kolegjin e Posa\u00e7\u00ebm t\u00eb Apelimit.<\/p>\n

Tre gjyqtar\u00ebt Rezarta Schuetz, Natasha Mulaj dhe Ardian Hajdari arsyetuan se veprimet e Metall\u00ebs ishin fiktive dhe p\u00ebr pasoj\u00eb, deklarimi i tij i pasuris\u00eb ishte i pamjaftuesh\u00ebm. Ata vendos\u00ebn t\u00eb l\u00ebn\u00eb n\u00eb fuqi vendimin e shkarkimit nga Komisioni i Pavarur i Kualifikimit, duke e r\u00ebnduar Metall\u00ebn edhe me \u201ccenimin e besimit t\u00eb publikut te drejt\u00ebsia\u201d.<\/p>\n

\u201cTrupi gjykues i Kolegjit vler\u00ebson se subjekti i rivler\u00ebsimit me veprimet e kryera n\u00eb funksion t\u00eb p\u00ebrfitimit t\u00eb kredis\u00eb tregtare n\u00eb vitin 2007 dhe sidomos me veprimet juridike t\u00eb kryera n\u00eb vitet 2011 dhe 2012, p\u00ebr q\u00ebllim p\u00ebrfitimi financiar, ka kryer nj\u00eb s\u00ebr\u00eb veprimesh juridike fiktive\/t\u00eb simuluara, t\u00eb cilat nuk p\u00ebrputhen me sjelljen etike q\u00eb nj\u00eb gjyqtar pritet t\u00eb ket\u00eb,\u201d thuhet n\u00eb arsyetimin e shumic\u00ebs, e cila \u00ebsht\u00eb fokusuar kryesisht te veprimet konkrete t\u00eb gjyqtarit.<\/p>\n

Nd\u00ebrkoh\u00eb, Albana Shtylla dhe Ina Rama n\u00eb pakic\u00eb k\u00ebrkuan q\u00eb vendimi i KPK-s\u00eb t\u00eb prishej, duke mos i konsideruar t\u00eb mjaftueshme gjetjet e Komisionit n\u00eb kriterin e pasuris\u00eb p\u00ebr t\u00eb arritur n\u00eb vendim shkarkimi. Sipas tyre, veprimet e Metall\u00ebs nuk mund t\u00eb konsideroheshin fiktive pasi ishin konkretizuar me blerjen e sht\u00ebpis\u00eb.\u00a0 Gjyqtaret k\u00ebrkuan q\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtje t\u00eb rikthehej n\u00eb KPK p\u00ebr t\u2019u rihetuar n\u00eb dy kriteret e tjera, duke v\u00ebn\u00eb n\u00eb dukje se nuk mund t\u00eb arrihej n\u00eb p\u00ebrfundim t\u00eb \u201cc\u00ebnimit t\u00eb besimit t\u00eb publikut te drejt\u00ebsia\u201d pa u shqyrtuar edhe profesionalizmi dhe figura.<\/p>\n

\u201cAjo q\u00eb duket se prevalon n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb analiz\u00eb \u00ebsht\u00eb mungesa e q\u00ebllimit p\u00ebr t\u00eb shtuar pasuri apo p\u00ebr t\u2019i siguruar vetes e familjes banesa luksi apo banesa jo t\u00eb domosdoshme p\u00ebr strehim n\u00eb kurriz t\u00eb taksapaguesve, duke shfryt\u00ebzuar funksionin,\u201d arsyetojn\u00eb gjyqtaret n\u00eb pakic\u00eb.<\/p>\n

Metalla ishte gjyqtar i Apelit t\u00eb Tiran\u00ebs kur u shkarkua nga Komisioni i Pavarur i Kualifikimit\u00a0 n\u00eb korrik t\u00eb vitit 2018, pasi KPK i gjeti atij probleme t\u00eb pasuris\u00eb. Vendimi i zbardhur i KPK-s\u00eb tregonte se Metalla kishte n\u00ebnshkruar kontratat fiktive dhe kishte p\u00ebrfituar nj\u00eb kredi t\u00eb but\u00eb p\u00ebr t\u00eb cil\u00ebn nuk p\u00ebrmbushte kushtet ligjore. KPK arsyetoi n\u00eb vendim se n\u00ebnshkrimi prej Metall\u00ebs i nj\u00eb s\u00ebr\u00eb kontratash fiktive ishte sjellje \u201cjo etike p\u00ebr nj\u00eb gjyqtar\u201d.<\/p>\n

\u201cJeta personale e gjyqtar\u00ebve, sjellja e tyre jasht\u00ebgjyq\u00ebsore, \u00ebsht\u00eb po aq e r\u00ebnd\u00ebsishme sa ajo n\u00eb kontekstin profesional,\u201d thuhet n\u00eb arsyetimin e KPK-s\u00eb n\u00eb vendimin p\u00ebr shkarkimin e Ervin Metall\u00ebs nga KPK.<\/p>\n

Metalla e kund\u00ebrshtoi n\u00eb KPA vendimin e KPK-s\u00eb dhe pretendoi nd\u00ebr t\u00eb tjera se veprimet e kryera prej tij nuk ishin fiktive, pasi kishin prodhuar efektet e k\u00ebrkuara, nd\u00ebrsa kund\u00ebrshtoi po ashtu edhe cil\u00ebsimin e v\u00ebllait t\u00eb tij si person i lidhur duke pretenduar se nuk kishte marr\u00eb as dhurim, as hua prej tij.<\/p>\n

Shumica shton \u201ccenimin e besimit\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n

Pretendimi i gjyqtarit Ervin Metalla se nuk kishte kryer fiktivitet n\u00eb kontratat me bankat ku kishte aplikuar p\u00ebr kredi, u gjet prej shumic\u00ebs s\u00eb an\u00ebtar\u00ebve t\u00eb KPA-s\u00eb i pabazuar. Duke iu referuar nj\u00eb morie l\u00ebvizjesh bankare, tre an\u00ebtar\u00ebt n\u00eb shumic\u00eb arsyetuan se mjaft prej k\u00ebtyre veprimeve ishin t\u00eb q\u00ebllimshme\u00a0 p\u00ebr t\u00eb mashtruar bank\u00ebn.<\/p>\n

Shumica arsyetoi k\u00ebshtu p\u00ebr nj\u00eb kredi bankare t\u00eb marr\u00eb n\u00eb vitin 2007 p\u00ebr t\u00eb bler\u00eb nj\u00eb apartament. Sipas shumic\u00ebs, \u00e7mimi i apartamentit ishte deklaruar 75 mij\u00eb euro dhe Metalla kishte marr\u00eb p\u00ebrsip\u00ebr t\u00eb paguante 27 p\u00ebr qind t\u00eb vler\u00ebs, por si\u00e7 rezultoi nga hetimet apartamenti kushtoi vet\u00ebm 55 mij\u00eb euro dhe ish-gjyqtari nuk e p\u00ebrmbushi pjes\u00ebn tjet\u00ebr t\u00eb kontrat\u00ebs.<\/p>\n

\u201cNdryshimi i nj\u00eb kushti themelor t\u00eb kontrat\u00ebs, vet\u00ebm p\u00ebr t\u2019iu paraqitur bank\u00ebs n\u00eb funksion t\u00eb p\u00ebrfitimit t\u00eb kredis\u00eb dhe jo q\u00ebllimit t\u00eb vet\u00eb pal\u00ebve, p\u00ebrmban element\u00eb t\u00eb fiktivitetit,\u201d analizohet n\u00eb vendim. Aty pretendohet n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb pik\u00eb se \u201cpal\u00ebt kan\u00eb pasur q\u00ebllim shmangien e zbatimit t\u00eb normave ligjore q\u00eb rregullojn\u00eb p\u00ebrfitimin e kredive bankare\u201d.<\/p>\n

Duke kund\u00ebrshtuar pretendimet e Metall\u00ebs se marr\u00ebdh\u00ebnia me bank\u00ebn n\u00eb fjal\u00eb kishte qen\u00eb n\u00eb mir\u00ebbesim dhe se kjo nuk p\u00ebrb\u00ebnte interes publik, shumica iu referua n\u00eb parim q\u00ebllimit t\u00eb procesit t\u00eb vetingut p\u00ebr t\u00eb rikthyer besimin te sistemi i drejt\u00ebsi\u00ebs\u00eb.<\/p>\n

\u201cVeprimet e subjektit t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit, par\u00eb s\u00eb bashku me veprime t\u00eb tjera t\u00eb cilat shtjellohen m\u00eb posht\u00eb, p\u00ebrb\u00ebjn\u00eb zgjedhje t\u00eb cilat jo vet\u00ebm nuk sh\u00ebrbejn\u00eb n\u00eb krijimin e besimit t\u00eb publikut te drejt\u00ebsia, por e d\u00ebmtojn\u00eb at\u00eb,\u201d thuhet n\u00eb mendimin e tre gjyqtar\u00ebve n\u00eb shumic\u00eb.<\/p>\n

Shumica shprehet se vendosja e nj\u00eb \u00e7mimi t\u00eb pav\u00ebrtet\u00eb dhe marrja p\u00ebrsip\u00ebr n\u00eb kontrat\u00eb e nj\u00eb pagese q\u00eb nuk kishte nd\u00ebrment ta kryente, nuk p\u00ebrputheshin me sjelljen etike t\u00eb nj\u00eb gjyqtari.<\/p>\n

Fiktiviteti i dyt\u00eb sipas shumic\u00ebs q\u00ebndron n\u00eb n\u00ebnshkrimin e nj\u00eb kontrate me v\u00ebllan\u00eb dhe m\u00eb pas me bank\u00ebn, po n\u00eb lidhje me k\u00ebt\u00eb apartament. Nga hetimet rezultoi se Metalla i kaloi t\u00eb v\u00ebllait t\u00eb drejtat e pron\u00ebsis\u00eb mbi apartamentin e bler\u00eb dhe po ashtu edhe kredin\u00eb q\u00eb po paguhej p\u00ebr t\u00eb, e gjitha sipas vendimit nj\u00eb manov\u00ebr n\u00eb m\u00ebnyr\u00eb q\u00eb ai t\u00eb mund t\u00eb deklarohej i pastreh\u00eb dhe t\u00eb p\u00ebrfitonte nj\u00eb kredi t\u00eb but\u00eb.<\/p>\n

Kolegji rr\u00ebzoi pretendimet e Metall\u00ebs se kishte aplikuar p\u00ebr kredi t\u00eb but\u00eb, fillimisht n\u00eb vitin 2006 kur nuk kishte pasur pron\u00eb, nd\u00ebrsa vuri n\u00eb dukje se ai kishte n\u00ebnshkruar dokumente ku deklaronte munges\u00ebn e pasurive t\u00eb paluajtshme n\u00eb pron\u00ebsi vet\u00ebm pak dit\u00eb pasi kishte b\u00ebr\u00eb kontrat\u00ebn me v\u00ebllan\u00eb, i cili merrte p\u00ebrsip\u00ebr kredin\u00eb p\u00ebr sht\u00ebpin\u00eb e par\u00eb.<\/p>\n

KPA n\u00eb shumic\u00eb bie dakord me KPK-n\u00eb se ish-gjyqtari n\u00eb fakt nuk hoqi dor\u00eb asnj\u00ebher\u00eb prej apartamentit n\u00eb fjal\u00eb dhe vazhdoi ta kishte at\u00eb n\u00eb posedim. Fakti q\u00eb pas disa vitesh ai rib\u00ebri nj\u00eb kontrat\u00eb shk\u00ebmbimi me t\u00eb v\u00ebllan\u00eb p\u00ebr ta rimarr\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb apartament s\u00ebrish n\u00eb pron\u00ebsi, por pa ndryshuar se cili prej tyre paguante kredin\u00eb, d\u00ebshmon sipas shumic\u00ebs se ai nuk kishte hequr asnj\u00ebher\u00eb dor\u00eb nga kjo sht\u00ebpi.<\/p>\n

Duke iu referuar pohimit t\u00eb vet\u00eb Metall\u00ebs, KPA thot\u00eb se kredia e but\u00eb q\u00eb sh\u00ebrbeu fillimisht p\u00ebr blerjen e nj\u00eb apartamenti 7.5 milion\u00eb lek\u00eb n\u00eb Tiran\u00eb, u p\u00ebrdor p\u00ebrfundimisht p\u00ebr t\u00eb financuar pron\u00ebn q\u00eb ai kishte bler\u00eb nd\u00ebrkoh\u00eb q\u00eb prej vitit 2008.\u00a0 \u201cKjo kredi e fituar p\u00ebr t\u00eb p\u00ebrmbushur nevojat p\u00ebr strehim t\u00eb subjektit n\u00eb vendin ku ushtronte detyr\u00ebn, sipas pohimeve t\u00eb subjektit, rezulton t\u00eb jet\u00eb p\u00ebrdorur p\u00ebr t\u00eb financuar investimin e tij fillestar n\u00eb apartamentin q\u00eb posedonte n\u00eb Tiran\u00eb,\u201d thuhet n\u00eb vendim.<\/p>\n

Vendndodhja e apartamentit q\u00eb u ble ishte po ashtu pjes\u00eb e debatit. Ish-gjyqtari, q\u00eb at\u00ebher\u00eb drejtonte Gjykat\u00ebn e Apelit n\u00eb Durr\u00ebs, i kishte lindur e drejta sipas shumic\u00ebs t\u00eb merrte nj\u00eb banes\u00eb n\u00eb vendin ku ushtronte profesionin.<\/p>\n

Por shumica thot\u00eb se Metalla u p\u00ebrfshi n\u00eb transaksione fiktive me t\u00eb v\u00ebllan\u00eb dhe se kreu nj\u00eb mori transaksionesh p\u00ebrfshi kontrata me kompani nd\u00ebrtuese n\u00eb Durr\u00ebs dhe n\u00eb Tiran\u00eb, t\u00eb cilat u prish\u00ebn m\u00eb pas me marr\u00ebveshje, n\u00eb m\u00ebnyr\u00eb q\u00eb parat\u00eb t\u00eb kalonin n\u00eb llogarin\u00eb e babait t\u00eb tij dhe t\u00eb p\u00ebrdoreshin m\u00eb pas p\u00ebr blerjen e nj\u00eb apartamenti n\u00eb kryeqytet. \u00a0Kolegji shpehet se n\u00ebnshkrimi dhe m\u00eb pas prishja e kontratave n\u00eb Durr\u00ebs dhe kthimi pas i parave jo te vet\u00eb Metalla, por te babai i tij, d\u00ebshmonin se ai ishte i nd\u00ebrgjegjsh\u00ebm \u201c p\u00ebr kushtin gjeografik t\u00eb p\u00ebrfitimit t\u00eb kredis\u00eb\u201d dhe se veprimet synonin shmangien e k\u00ebtij kushti.<\/p>\n

Duke u shprehur se kredia e but\u00eb ishte p\u00ebrfituar n\u00eb shkelje t\u00eb kritereve ligjore, shumica arsyetoi se \u201ckjo m\u00ebnyr\u00eb sjelljeje e subjektit t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit tregon qasjen e tij n\u00eb raport me respektimin e ligjit\u201d. Sipas shumic\u00ebs, bazuar n\u00eb Kodin e Etik\u00ebs s\u00eb Gjyqtar\u00ebve n\u00eb Shqip\u00ebri dhe Parimet e Bangalores, sjellja e Metall\u00ebs binte ndesh me sjelljen q\u00eb duhej t\u00eb kishte nj\u00eb gjyqtar.<\/p>\n

Shumica arsyetoi pjes\u00ebrisht n\u00eb favor t\u00eb Metall\u00ebs sa i p\u00ebrket barr\u00ebs s\u00eb prov\u00ebs s\u00eb kaluar p\u00ebr t\u00eb v\u00ebllan\u00eb. N\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb pik\u00eb, KPA pranoi se ajo nuk kishte qen\u00eb porporcionale. Por Kolegji doli me arsyetimin se marr\u00ebdh\u00ebnia e tij me v\u00ebllan\u00eb, p\u00ebrfshi marrja p\u00ebrsip\u00ebr e kredis\u00eb tregtare, shk\u00ebmbimi i apartamenteve, shitja e nj\u00eb makine dhe nj\u00eb hua p\u00ebr makin\u00eb n\u00eb vitin 2004, e b\u00ebnin at\u00eb person t\u00eb lidhur.<\/p>\n

\u201cN\u00eb rastin konkret, barra e prov\u00ebs proporcionale do t\u00eb duhet t\u00eb p\u00ebrfshinte pasurin\u00eb objekt interesi pasuror \u2013 n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb rast apartamentin n\u00eb pron\u00ebsi t\u00eb z. E. M., likuiditetet n\u00eb vler\u00ebn 1 milion\u00eb lek\u00eb dhe huan\u00eb n\u00eb vler\u00ebn 1.700 euro p\u00ebr blerjen e automjetit n\u00eb vitin 2004,\u201d thuhet n\u00eb vendim.<\/p>\n

Kolegji, ngjash\u00ebm si Komisioni doli n\u00eb p\u00ebrfundimin se v\u00ebllai i ish-gjyqtarit nuk kishte pasur burime t\u00eb ligjshme financiare p\u00ebr t\u00eb justifikuar \u201cdh\u00ebnien e shum\u00ebs prej 1.000.000 lek\u00ebsh n\u00eb vitin 2011 dhe vendosjen e pasuris\u00eb apartament, t\u00eb bler\u00eb n\u00eb vitin 2008, si garanci subjektit t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit\u201d.<\/p>\n

Pakica kund\u00ebr vendimit t\u00eb KPK-s\u00eb \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n

Dy gjyqtaret n\u00eb pakic\u00eb, Albana Shtylla dhe Ina Rama e vler\u00ebsuan ndryshe rastin e Ervin Metall\u00ebs. Ato arsyetuan n\u00eb nj\u00eb mendim paralel se vendimi i Komisionit ishte i c\u00ebnuesh\u00ebm dhe se veprimet e konsideruara fiktive nuk duhej t\u00eb shiheshin si t\u00eb tilla.<\/p>\n

Pakica bazohet kryesisht n\u00eb parashikimet e ligjit p\u00ebr kredin\u00eb e but\u00eb, q\u00eb u mund\u00ebsonte zyrtar\u00ebve p\u00ebrfitues edhe z\u00ebvend\u00ebsimin e nj\u00eb kredie tregtare dhe po ashtu edhe n\u00eb faktin q\u00eb p\u00ebrfitimi final i subjektit ishte vet\u00ebm banesa. Po ashtu, pakica kund\u00ebrshtoi edhe konsiderimin e v\u00ebllait si person i lidhur, duke cil\u00ebsuar se kontratat mes v\u00ebllez\u00ebrve Metalla nuk kishin sjell\u00eb ndryshime t\u00eb pasuris\u00eb.<\/p>\n

P\u00ebrfshirja e shkeljes \u201ccenimi i besimit t\u00eb publikut te drejt\u00ebsia\u201d n\u00eb vendimin e KPA-s\u00eb, sipas dy gjyqtareve n\u00eb pakic\u00eb k\u00ebrkon rihapje t\u00eb hetimit n\u00eb dy kriteret e tjera.<\/p>\n

Konkretisht, pakica kund\u00ebrshtoi gjetjet se kontratat e n\u00ebnshkruara ishin t\u00eb pavlefshme. \u201cKontrata paraprake e shitjes e cituar m\u00eb lart, rezulton se ka prodhuar n\u00eb fund pasojat e saj ligjore, t\u00eb cilat jan\u00eb ato t\u00eb d\u00ebshiruara e t\u00eb deklaruara n\u00eb p\u00ebrmbajtjen e saj p\u00ebr kalimin e s\u00eb drejt\u00ebs s\u00eb pron\u00ebsis\u00eb mbi objektin e shitjes nga shit\u00ebsi te bler\u00ebsi,\u201d thuhet n\u00eb arsyetim duke iu referuar kredis\u00eb s\u00eb vitit 2007.<\/p>\n

Sa i p\u00ebrket \u00e7mimit, gjyqtaret arsyetojn\u00eb se ndryshimi i tij nuk passjell\u00eb pavlefshm\u00ebri t\u00eb kontrat\u00ebs dhe as fiktivitet t\u00eb saj. Pakica shprehet se e gjith\u00eb kjo mund t\u00eb ishte nj\u00eb proces civil mes dy pal\u00ebve, por nuk mund t\u00eb ishte objekt i rivler\u00ebsimit.<\/p>\n

Ngjashm\u00ebrisht, duke p\u00ebrdorur si argument se veprimet juridike kishin sjell\u00eb pasojat p\u00ebr t\u00eb cilat ishin kryer, pakica arsyetoi se kalimi i apartamentit t\u00eb par\u00eb te v\u00ebllai dhe marrja e tij pas m\u00eb von\u00eb, pas p\u00ebrfitimit t\u00eb kredis\u00eb s\u00eb leht\u00ebsuar nuk mund t\u00eb quheshin veprime fiktive.<\/p>\n

\u201cDuke konsideruar k\u00ebto rrethana, vler\u00ebsojm\u00eb se as ky veprim juridik nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb nj\u00eb veprim i pavlefsh\u00ebm, p\u00ebr shkak t\u00eb parashikimit t\u00eb nenit 92, germa \u201c\u00e7\u201d e Kodit Civil, p\u00ebr sa koh\u00eb ai ka prodhuar pasojat e d\u00ebshiruara prej pal\u00ebve e t\u00eb deklaruara n\u00eb p\u00ebrmbajtjen e tij,\u201d thuhet n\u00eb mendimin e pakic\u00ebs.<\/p>\n

Duke iu referuar moris\u00eb s\u00eb veprimeve juridike dhe kontratave q\u00eb rezultuan me blerjen e nj\u00eb apartamenti n\u00eb Tiran\u00eb, n\u00eb vend t\u00eb atij t\u00eb porositur n\u00eb fillim n\u00eb Durr\u00ebs, pakica arrin n\u00eb t\u00eb nj\u00ebjtin p\u00ebrfundim edhe pse pranon se veprimet ishin t\u00eb v\u00ebshtira p\u00ebr t\u2019u kuptuar.<\/p>\n

\u201cPavar\u00ebsisht kompleksitetit t\u00eb realizimit t\u00eb k\u00ebtyre veprimeve juridike t\u00eb sip\u00ebrcituara mes pal\u00ebve e v\u00ebshtir\u00ebsis\u00eb p\u00ebr t\u00eb kuptuar mekanizmin e tyre, n\u00eb vler\u00ebsimin e pakic\u00ebs, nuk konstatohen n\u00eb k\u00ebto veprime elemente q\u00eb mund t\u00eb shkaktojn\u00eb pavlefshm\u00ebri apo kund\u00ebrshti me urdh\u00ebrimet e parashikuara n\u00eb ligj,\u201d thuhet n\u00eb arsyetim.<\/p>\n

Duke marr\u00eb parasysh argumentet mbrojt\u00ebse t\u00eb Metall\u00ebs, pakica vuri n\u00eb dukje se i vetmi p\u00ebrfitim i subjektit nga gjith\u00eb l\u00ebvizjet e nd\u00ebrmarra me kredi dhe kontrata ishte nj\u00eb banes\u00eb. Gjyqtaret n\u00eb pakic\u00eb e lidhin k\u00ebt\u00eb p\u00ebrfundim me faktin se kredia leht\u00ebsuese \u00ebsht\u00eb p\u00ebrdorur p\u00ebr strehim dhe jo p\u00ebr luks apo p\u00ebr banes\u00eb t\u00eb dyt\u00eb.<\/p>\n

\u201cAjo q\u00eb duket se prevalon n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb analiz\u00eb, \u00ebsht\u00eb mungesa e q\u00ebllimit p\u00ebr t\u00eb shtuar pasuri apo p\u00ebr t\u2019i siguruar vetes e familjes banesa luksi apo banesa jo t\u00eb domosdoshme p\u00ebr strehim n\u00eb kurriz t\u00eb taksapaguesve e duke shfryt\u00ebzuar funksionin,\u201d thuhet n\u00eb arsyetim.<\/p>\n

Pakica po ashtu duke iu referuar udh\u00ebzimit p\u00ebr kredin\u00eb leht\u00ebsuese pretendon se Metalla kishte pasur automatikisht t\u00eb drejt\u00eb t\u00eb merrte nj\u00eb kredi t\u00eb but\u00eb p\u00ebr t\u00eb z\u00ebvend\u00ebsuar kredin\u00eb tregtare. Duke iu referuar udh\u00ebzimit, pakica thot\u00eb se \u201cky rregullim lejonte dhe mund\u00ebsonte q\u00eb subjektet p\u00ebrfituese mund t\u00eb aplikonin p\u00ebr t\u00eb fituar kredi me kushte leht\u00ebsuese edhe n\u00eb kushtet e pasjes s\u00eb nj\u00eb kredie tregtare q\u00eb kishte financuar blerjen e banes\u00ebs q\u00eb siguronte strehimin p\u00ebr ta\u201d.<\/p>\n

Nisur prej k\u00ebsaj pike, pakica pretendon se veprimet edhe pse t\u00eb komplikuara t\u00eb subjektit nuk kishin n\u00eb p\u00ebrfundim q\u00ebllim tjet\u00ebr p\u00ebrpos sigurimit t\u00eb banes\u00ebs dhe q\u00eb ishte edhe q\u00ebllimi i kredis\u00eb s\u00eb but\u00eb.<\/p>\n

Po ashtu, shumica kund\u00ebrshtoi trajtimin e v\u00ebllait si person i lidhur. Duke pranuar argumentet e Metall\u00ebs, dy gjyqtaret than\u00eb se marr\u00ebdh\u00ebniet mes dy v\u00ebllez\u00ebrve nuk ishin as n\u00eb form\u00ebn e dhurimit dhe as t\u00eb huas\u00eb, por kontraktore. Nd\u00ebrsa kthimi pas i nj\u00eb shume prej 1 milion lek\u00ebsh nga v\u00ebllai te ish-gjyqtari u konsiderua si kthim i shpenzimeve q\u00eb Metalla kishte kryer n\u00eb blerjen e apartamentit t\u00eb par\u00eb.<\/p>\n

\u201cN\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb kuptim, kjo shum\u00eb nuk p\u00ebrb\u00ebn dhe as p\u00ebrfaq\u00ebson nj\u00eb vler\u00eb t\u00eb shtuar t\u00eb pasuris\u00eb s\u00eb subjektit, por vet\u00ebm rikthim t\u00eb nj\u00eb pasurie q\u00eb ai e kishte nxjerr\u00eb m\u00eb par\u00eb prej disponimit t\u00eb tij p\u00ebr shkak t\u00eb pagimit t\u00eb detyrimeve kontraktuale me bank\u00ebn,\u201d thuhet n\u00eb arsyetim. Ngjashm\u00ebrisht arsyetohet p\u00ebr vendosjen kolateral t\u00eb apartamentit nga v\u00ebllai dhe daljen garant n\u00eb marrjen e kredis\u00eb s\u00eb but\u00eb.<\/p>\n

Dy gjyqtaret u shpreh\u00ebn gjithashtu kund\u00ebr p\u00ebrfundimit se Metalla kishte \u201ccenuar besimin e publikut te drejt\u00ebsia\u201d n\u00eb vendimin e KPA-s\u00eb. Ato e cil\u00ebsuan k\u00ebt\u00eb p\u00ebrfundim n\u00eb shkelje t\u00eb procesit t\u00eb rregullt, duke r\u00ebnduar \u201cpozit\u00ebn e subjektit t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit n\u00eb gjykim\u201d, pa i dh\u00ebn\u00eb atij mund\u00ebsin\u00eb e mbrojtjes.<\/p>\n

Pakica argumenton gjithashtu se p\u00ebr t\u2019u konsideruar nj\u00eb subjekt n\u00eb shkelje t\u00eb pik\u00ebs pes\u00eb t\u00eb nenit 61 t\u00eb ligjit p\u00ebr vetingun, duhej q\u00eb ai t\u00eb ishte hetuar m\u00eb her\u00ebt n\u00eb t\u00eb tre kriteret. \u201cN\u00eb vler\u00ebsimin ton\u00eb kusht\u00ebzon zbatimin e k\u00ebtij rasti si shkak shkarkimi vet\u00ebm pasi jan\u00eb vler\u00ebsuar t\u00eb tre kriteret e procesit t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit dhe nuk mund t\u00eb jet\u00eb i aplikuesh\u00ebm vet\u00ebm me kontrollin e verifikimin e vet\u00ebm nj\u00eb kriteri,\u201d thuhet n\u00eb arsyetim.<\/p>\n

Duke u nisur nga kjo pik\u00eb, dy gjyqtaret propozuan q\u00eb vendimi t\u00eb prishej dhe t\u00eb rikthehej p\u00ebr shqyrtim t\u00eb dy kritereve t\u00eb tjera n\u00eb KPK. Ato arsyetuan se kjo nuk binte n\u00eb kund\u00ebrshtim me ndalimin kushtetues t\u00eb kthimit t\u00eb vendimeve pas n\u00eb KPK p\u00ebr rishqyrtim, pasi dy kriteret n\u00eb fjal\u00eb nuk ishin shqyrtuar.<\/p>\n

\u201cKomisioni nuk ka kryer nj\u00eb hetim apo vler\u00ebsim p\u00ebr kriteret e tjera t\u00eb procesit t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit, at\u00eb t\u00eb kontrollit t\u00eb figur\u00ebs dhe t\u00eb aft\u00ebsive profesionale, situat\u00eb q\u00eb nuk vendos d\u00ebrgimin e \u00e7\u00ebshtjes n\u00eb Komision n\u00eb t\u00eb nj\u00ebjt\u00ebn pozit\u00eb procedurale me rishqyrtimin p\u00ebr t\u00eb cilin shprehet me ndalim neni F i Aneksit t\u00eb Kushtetut\u00ebs,\u201d p\u00ebrfundojn\u00eb gjyqtaret Shtylla dhe Rama.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Shumica n\u00eb KPA la n\u00eb fuqi vendimin e shkall\u00ebs s\u00eb par\u00eb p\u00ebr shkarkimin e ish-gjyqtarit t\u00eb Apelit, Ervin Metalla duke i shtuar atij si shkelje edhe \u201cc\u00ebnimin e besimit te drejt\u00ebsia\u201d. Dy gjyqtaret n\u00eb pakic\u00eb k\u00ebrkuan prishjen e vendimit t\u00eb KPK-s\u00eb dhe rivler\u00ebsimin e gjyqtarit p\u00ebr dy kriteret e tjera.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":97,"featured_media":75482,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[13,415,114,473],"tags":[125,103,112],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/www.reporter.al\/wp-content\/uploads\/Ervin-Metalla2.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"Gjyqtari Ervin Metalla | Foto : LSA","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75481"}],"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=75481"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75481\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":75483,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75481\/revisions\/75483"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/75482"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=75481"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=75481"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=75481"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}