{"id":75786,"date":"2019-11-01T17:26:55","date_gmt":"2019-11-01T16:26:55","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/kryetarja-e-kpa-se-mendim-pakice-per-nertina-kosoven\/2019\/11\/01\/"},"modified":"2023-04-07T05:12:11","modified_gmt":"2023-04-07T03:12:11","slug":"kryetarja-e-kpa-se-mendim-pakice-per-nertina-kosoven","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/kryetarja-e-kpa-se-mendim-pakice-per-nertina-kosoven\/2019\/11\/01\/","title":{"rendered":"Kryetarja e KPA-s\u00eb \u2018mendim pakice\u2019 p\u00ebr Nertina Kosov\u00ebn"},"content":{"rendered":"

Gjyqtarja e Apelit p\u00ebr Krime t\u00eb R\u00ebnda, Nertina Kosova u konfirmua n\u00eb detyr\u00eb me shumic\u00eb votash, nd\u00ebrsa kryetarja e Kolegjit t\u00eb Posa\u00e7\u00ebm t\u00eb Apelimit, Natasha Mulaj arsyetoi se ajo duhet t\u00eb ishte shkarkuar.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Kryetarja e Kolegjit te Posacem te Apelimit, KPA, Natasha Mulaj dhe anetar\u00ebt, Ardian Hajdari, Sokol \u00c7omo, Rezarta Schuetz, Luan Daci, gjat\u00eb nj\u00eb seance t\u00eb Kolegjit t\u00eb Posa\u00eb\u00ebm t\u00eb Apelimit (KPA), | Foto : LSA<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Gjyqtarja e Apelit t\u00eb Krimeve t\u00eb R\u00ebnda Nertina Kosova ishte e subjekti i par\u00eb i e cila u konfirmua n\u00eb dy shkall\u00ebt e procesit t\u00eb vetingut dhe mbetet e vetmja q\u00eb ka kaluar dy her\u00eb procesin e verifikimit t\u00eb pasuris\u00eb.<\/p>\n

Megjithat\u00eb vendimi i zbardhur i Kolegjit t\u00eb Posa\u00e7\u00ebm t\u00eb Apelimit, i cili vendosi rikonfirmimin e Kosov\u00ebs nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb unanim. Kat\u00ebr an\u00ebtar\u00eb t\u00eb trup\u00ebs gjykuese, Sokol \u00c7omo, Ardian Hajdari, Luan Daci dhe Rezarta Schuetz gjykuan se pasurit\u00eb e Kosov\u00ebs dhe familjes s\u00eb saj ishin nga burime t\u00eb ligjshme, nd\u00ebrsa i cil\u00ebsuan disa pasakt\u00ebsi n\u00eb deklarime si jo t\u00eb r\u00ebnd\u00ebsishme. Schuetz megjithat\u00eb n\u00eb nj\u00eb q\u00ebndrim paralel, k\u00ebmb\u00ebnguli q\u00eb Kolegji duhej t\u00eb kishte arsyetuar ndryshe mbi mosdeklarimin e nj\u00eb llogarie bankare dy em\u00ebrore dhe se vendimi i zbardhur duhej t\u00eb ishte m\u00eb i detajuar.<\/p>\n

Nd\u00ebrkoh\u00eb n\u00eb pakic\u00eb Natasha Mulaj, e cila ishte edhe relatore e \u00e7\u00ebshtjes arsyeton se hetimi provoi se gjyqtarja Kosova kishte b\u00ebr\u00eb deklarim t\u00eb pamjaftuesh\u00ebm e madje kishte fshehur pasurin\u00eb. Mulaj, e cila gjat\u00eb procesit gjyq\u00ebsor\u00eb pati nj\u00eb debat me gjyqtaren n\u00eb lidhje me nj\u00eb seri pyetjesh q\u00eb u cil\u00ebsuan nga Kosova si \u201cgati paragjykuese\u201d, argumenton n\u00eb t\u00eb kund\u00ebrt t\u00eb shumic\u00ebs dhe p\u00ebrtej k\u00ebrkesave t\u00eb Komisionerit Publik, i cili n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb rast u shpreh se ishte bindur nga provat e gjyqtares.<\/p>\n

Kosova kaloi me sukses shkall\u00ebn e par\u00eb t\u00eb vetingut m\u00eb 18 korrik 2018, pasi KPK e vler\u00ebsoi pozitivisht n\u00eb t\u00eb tre kriteret, por u p\u00ebrball m\u00eb pas me nj\u00eb ankim t\u00eb Komisioneri Publik, Florian Ballhysa, i cili pretendoi se hetimi i KPK n\u00eb kriterin e pasuris\u00eb nuk ishte i plot\u00eb. KPA vendosi n\u00eb 26 korrik 2019 t\u00eb l\u00ebr\u00eb n\u00eb fuqi vendimin e Komisionit t\u00eb Pavarur t\u00eb Kualifikimit, nd\u00ebrsa n\u00eb vendimin e zbardhur del se edhe Komisioneri Publik \u00ebsht\u00eb pajtuar me k\u00ebt\u00eb vendim.<\/p>\n

Kosova \u00ebsht\u00eb an\u00ebtare e Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Apelit p\u00ebr Krime t\u00eb R\u00ebnda prej korrikut 2014. M\u00eb par\u00eb, ajo ka punuar si gjyqtare n\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebn e Shkall\u00ebs s\u00eb Par\u00eb p\u00ebr Krime t\u00eb R\u00ebnda si dhe nj\u00eb koh\u00eb t\u00eb shkurt\u00ebr n\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebn e Elbasanit. Ajo po ashtu ka qen\u00eb pedagoge n\u00eb Universitetin e Elbasanit.<\/p>\n

Q\u00ebndrimi i shumic\u00ebs<\/strong><\/p>\n

Apeli ndaj konfirmimit t\u00eb Kosov\u00ebs u bazua kryesisht mbi kat\u00ebr \u00e7\u00ebshtje t\u00eb pasuris\u00eb s\u00eb gjyqtares. Kryesore n\u00eb k\u00ebrkes\u00ebn e Komisionerit Publik ishte justifikimi i dy shumave t\u00eb p\u00ebrdorura p\u00ebr parapagimin e nj\u00eb apartamenti t\u00eb bler\u00eb nga gjyqtarja me kredi.<\/p>\n

Shumat nj\u00ebra prej 1.5 milion lek\u00ebsh dhe tjetra 1 milion lek\u00eb, vinin sipas gjyqtares prej kursimeve t\u00eb prind\u00ebrve ku ajo kishte kontribuar, por ato nuk ishin deklaruar n\u00eb vite pasi ligji nuk parashikon deklarimin p\u00ebr prind\u00ebrit.<\/p>\n

Kosova kishte shpjeguar n\u00eb KPK se shuma e par\u00eb prej 1.5 milion lek\u00ebsh ishte marr\u00eb nga babai dhe i ishte dh\u00ebn\u00eb nd\u00ebrtuesit, por pasi kjo marr\u00ebveshje kishte d\u00ebshtuar parat\u00eb ishin kthyer pas. Prej k\u00ebsaj shume ishte marr\u00eb m\u00eb pas 1 milion lek\u00eb q\u00eb jan\u00eb paguar n\u00eb nj\u00eb kontrat\u00eb t\u00eb dyt\u00eb sip\u00ebrmarrjeje.<\/p>\n

Shumica pasi shqyrtoi nj\u00eb s\u00ebr\u00eb dokumentash arriti n\u00eb p\u00ebrfundimin q\u00eb \u201csubjekti i rivler\u00ebsimit v\u00ebrtetoi burimin e ligjsh\u00ebm t\u00eb t\u00eb ardhurave n\u00eb shum\u00ebn 1 milion lek\u00eb, pjes\u00eb e kursimeve nga t\u00eb ardhurat e ligjshme t\u00eb familjes Kosova dhe q\u00eb kan\u00eb sh\u00ebrbyer p\u00ebr pages\u00ebn e k\u00ebstit t\u00eb par\u00eb sipas kontrat\u00ebs s\u00eb sip\u00ebrmarrjes\u201d.<\/p>\n

N\u00eb vendimin e zbardhur vihet n\u00eb dukje se analiza financiare e pasuris\u00eb s\u00eb familjes, p\u00ebrfshir\u00eb kontributin e vet\u00eb gjyqtares ishte e mjaftueshme p\u00ebr t\u00eb krijuar k\u00ebt\u00eb kursim. Po ashtu shumica la t\u00eb kuptohet se mosdeklarimi i k\u00ebsaj shume nuk penalizonte Kosov\u00ebn, pasi parat\u00eb ishin mbajtur nga familja. Q\u00ebndrimet e Kosov\u00ebs se k\u00ebto para nuk ishin as dhurat\u00eb e prind\u00ebrve, por kthim pas i kontributeve q\u00eb ajo kishte dh\u00ebn\u00eb u pranuan nga KPA.<\/p>\n

\u201cSubjekti i rivler\u00ebsimit, znj. Nertina Kosova, ka pasur p\u00ebr detyr\u00eb t\u00eb deklaronte likuiditetet n\u00eb \u00e7far\u00ebdo forme, por nuk mund t\u00eb deklaronte ato likuiditete q\u00eb ishin n\u00eb administrim t\u00eb prind\u00ebrve dhe t\u00eb familjes s\u00eb saj, pavar\u00ebsisht nga fakti se familja mund t\u00eb kishte krijuar kursime edhe p\u00ebr shkak t\u00eb kontributit t\u00eb saj me t\u00eb ardhurat nga paga\u201d, thuhet n\u00eb arsyetimin e shumic\u00ebs.<\/p>\n

KPA iu referua p\u00ebr k\u00ebt\u00eb l\u00ebvizjeve n\u00eb llogarit\u00eb bankare t\u00eb prind\u00ebrve t\u00eb Kosov\u00ebs, p\u00ebrfshi nj\u00eb t\u00ebrheqje pik\u00ebrisht n\u00eb dat\u00ebn kur ajo kishte paguar sipas kontrat\u00ebs shum\u00ebn prej 1 milion lek\u00eb t\u00eb sip\u00ebrmarr\u00ebsi.<\/p>\n

Megjithat\u00eb n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb pik\u00eb KPA arriti n\u00eb p\u00ebrfundimin se Kosova \u201cka pasur pasakt\u00ebsi n\u00eb deklarimet e saj\u201d, por q\u00eb n\u00eb nuk ndikonon n\u00eb procesin e saj t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit, pasi n\u00eb thelb u provua q\u00eb t\u00eb ardhurat ishin nga burime t\u00eb ligjshme. \u00a0Shumica argumentoi bazuar kryesisht n\u00eb q\u00ebndrimet e Komisionerit Publik se l\u00ebvizjet n\u00eb llogari bankare edhe pse nuk ishin deklaruar\u00a0 nuk tregonin p\u00ebr pasuri t\u00eb paligjshme.<\/p>\n

Ngjash\u00ebm trupi gjykues vendosi se dy transferta bankare q\u00eb v\u00ebllai i Kosov\u00ebs kishte kryer nuk kishin t\u00eb b\u00ebnin me pasurin\u00eb e familjes, por kishin lidhje me pun\u00ebn e tij. \u201cN\u00ebp\u00ebrmjet dokumentacionit t\u00eb paraqitur arriti t\u00eb provoj\u00eb se transferta e kryer nga i v\u00ebllai i subjektit t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit n\u00eb nj\u00eb llogari bankare jasht\u00eb vendit, n\u00eb asnj\u00eb rrethan\u00eb faktike e ligjore nuk lidhej me subjektin e rivler\u00ebsimit, znj. Nertina Kosova, apo t\u00eb ardhurat e saj\u201d, thuhet n\u00eb vendim. Kosova paraqiti sipas KPA nj\u00eb s\u00ebr\u00eb dokumentesh q\u00eb provonin pun\u00ebn e t\u00eb v\u00ebllait n\u00eb nj\u00eb kompani dhe nj\u00eb s\u00ebr\u00eb transfertash t\u00eb k\u00ebsaj kompanie.<\/p>\n

Shumica po ashtu arriti n\u00eb p\u00ebrfundimin se nj\u00eb hua e marr\u00eb nga babai te nj\u00eb person i tret\u00eb nuk kishte lidhje as t\u00eb \u201cdrejtp\u00ebrdrejt\u00eb apo e t\u00ebrthort\u00eb\u201d me gjyqtaren. Arsyet e tjera t\u00eb ankimin nuk u gjet\u00ebn t\u00eb bazuara.<\/p>\n

Nd\u00ebrkoh\u00eb, nd\u00ebrsa ishte dakord me p\u00ebrfundimet e shumic\u00ebs gjytarja Rezarta Schuetz doli me mendim paralel n\u00eb t\u00eb cilin i t\u00ebrhoqi v\u00ebmendje trup\u00ebs p\u00ebr m\u00ebnyr\u00ebn se si ishte arsyetuar vendimi. Schuetz tha se arsyetimi p\u00ebr mos deklarimin e likuiditeteve t\u00eb administruara nga prind\u00ebrit krijonte nj\u00eb hap\u00ebsir\u00eb q\u00eb \u201ci \u00e7lironte subjektet nga detyrimi p\u00ebr t\u00eb deklaruar sipas ligjit\u201d.<\/p>\n

Ajo tha se KPA duhej t\u00eb ishte m\u00eb e qart\u00eb n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb pik\u00eb pasi n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb m\u00ebnyr\u00eb interpretimi \u201cpadrejt\u00ebsisht nd\u00ebrhyn dhe prish rregullat e bazuara n\u00eb ligjet mbi t\u00eb cilat ka funksionuar e funksionon deklarimi i pasurive dhe i interesave private\u201d.<\/p>\n

Ajo po ashtu kishte kritika mbi faktin se arsyetimi i shumic\u00ebs u bazua kryesisht n\u00eb q\u00ebndrime e Komisionerit Publik, nd\u00ebrsa \u201cduhet t\u00eb ishin pasqyruar gjer\u00ebsisht dhe sakt\u00ebsisht\u201d, analiza financiare dhe hetimet q\u00eb kishte kryer vet\u00eb Kolegji.<\/p>\n

Q\u00ebndrimi i pakic\u00ebs <\/strong><\/p>\n

N\u00eb pakic\u00eb relatorja e \u00e7\u00ebshtjes Natasha Mulaj doli n\u00eb nj\u00eb p\u00ebrfundim krejt tjet\u00ebr. Ajo shprehet se \u201ctrupi gjykues duhet t\u00eb kishte vendosur ndryshimin e vendimit, t\u00eb Komisionit dhe shkarkim nga detyra t\u00eb subjektit t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit, Nertina Kosova\u201d.<\/p>\n

Gjyqtarja shprehet se \u2018analiza financiare\u2019 e nxjerr Kosov\u00ebn me pamjaftueshm\u00ebri t\u00eb burimeve t\u00eb ligjshme. Ajo thot\u00eb se nuk ka prova t\u00eb mjaftueshme p\u00ebr t\u00eb provuar se shuma prej 1.5 milion lek\u00ebsh ishte kthyer pas nga nd\u00ebrtuesi apo edhe q\u00eb kontrata ishte prishur, po ashtu ajo pretendon se Kosova nuk kishte pasur burime t\u00eb mjaftueshme p\u00ebr t\u00eb paguar 1 milion lek\u00eb n\u00eb kontrat\u00ebn e dyt\u00eb dhe se ajo nuk kishte njoftuar bank\u00ebn p\u00ebr k\u00ebt\u00eb ndryshim kontrate.<\/p>\n

Mulaj thot\u00eb se nuk ka asnj\u00eb prov\u00eb, \u201csi\u00e7 e parashikon ligji q\u00eb provon prishjen e kontrat\u00ebs s\u00eb par\u00eb mes \u201cM.K.\u201d Sh.p.k dhe subjektit t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit dhe kthimin e vler\u00ebs prej 1.5 milion\u00eb lek\u00ebsh\u201d.<\/p>\n

Nj\u00eb marr\u00ebveshje me kompanin\u00eb e n\u00ebnshkruar para l\u00ebvrimit t\u00eb kredis\u00eb n\u00eb fjal\u00eb dhe pretendimet e Kosov\u00ebs s\u00eb banka nuk kishte p\u00ebsuar d\u00ebm nga ndryshimi i objektit q\u00eb blihej, pasi nd\u00ebrkoh\u00eb si garanci ishte vendosur sht\u00ebpia e prind\u00ebrve, nuk e kan\u00eb bindur Mulajn.<\/p>\n

P\u00ebrndryshe nga shumica, Mulaj e ka detajuar q\u00ebndrimin e saj mbi analiz\u00ebn financiare duke arsyetuar se ka \u201ckund\u00ebrshtuar vendimin e shumic\u00ebs q\u00eb vler\u00ebson t\u00eb p\u00ebrllogaris\u00eb shpenzimet p\u00ebr konsum familjar, ku sipas metodologjis\u00eb s\u00eb p\u00ebrdorur nga shumica, shpenzimet p\u00ebr konsum p\u00ebrb\u00ebjn\u00eb vet\u00ebm 19% t\u00eb t\u00eb ardhurave\u201d.<\/p>\n

Ndryshe nga analiza e pranuar prej shumic\u00ebs, analiza financiare q\u00eb referon Mulaj e nxjerr gjyqtaren me munges\u00eb burimesh me 1.1 milion lek\u00eb p\u00ebr pages\u00ebn n\u00eb kontrat\u00ebn e par\u00eb dhe 1.5 milion n\u00eb kontrat\u00ebn e dyt\u00eb.<\/p>\n

Mulaj po ashtu ka kund\u00ebrshtuar q\u00ebndrimin e shumic\u00ebs sa i p\u00ebrket pagesave q\u00eb v\u00ebllai i Kosov\u00ebs kishte kryer p\u00ebr llogari t\u00eb nj\u00eb kompanie t\u00eb huaj. Mulaj thot\u00eb se \u00a0\u201cn\u00eb dallim nga shumica e trupit gjykues, vler\u00ebsoj se subjekti i rivler\u00ebsimit nuk arriti t\u00eb provoj\u00eb p\u00ebrmes provave t\u00eb paraqitura n\u00eb Kolegj faktin q\u00eb kjo transfert\u00eb ishte kryer n\u00eb em\u00ebr dhe p\u00ebr llogari t\u00eb shoq\u00ebris\u00eb \u201cA.P.\u201d ShPK\u201d.<\/p>\n

Sipas Mulajt, paraqitja e nj\u00eb kontrate pune me k\u00ebt\u00eb kompani nuk ishte e mjaftueshme, pasi nuk rezultonte q\u00eb kompania t\u00eb kishte paguar sigurime shoq\u00ebrore e sh\u00ebndet\u00ebsore p\u00ebr v\u00ebllain e Kosov\u00ebs. Nga ana tjet\u00ebr Mulaj i konsideron indicie q\u00eb nuk provonin faktin dokumentet e paraqitura nga Kosova, q\u00eb d\u00ebshmonin nj\u00eb s\u00ebr\u00eb transferatash t\u00eb ngjashme t\u00eb kryera nga kompania n\u00eb fjal\u00eb dhe t\u00eb firmosur nga v\u00ebllai i saj si punonj\u00ebs dhe as t\u00eb dh\u00ebnat bankare q\u00eb paraqiti gjyqtarja mbi llogarin\u00eb bankare t\u00eb p\u00ebrdorur p\u00ebr k\u00ebt\u00eb rast.<\/p>\n

Mulaj thot\u00eb se transferta prej 22 mij\u00eb dollar\u00ebsh duhej konsideruar si shpenzim i familjes dhe kjo e \u00e7onte pamjaftueshm\u00ebrin\u00eb financiare t\u00eb Kosov\u00ebs n\u00eb 3.7 milion lek\u00eb p\u00ebr periudh\u00ebn deri n\u00eb vitin 2006.<\/p>\n

Gjyqtarja n\u00eb pakic\u00eb po ashtu kund\u00ebrshtoi shumic\u00ebn n\u00eb lidhje me huan e marr\u00eb nga babai i gjyqtares, duke pretenduar se huadh\u00ebn\u00ebsi duhej t\u00eb konsiderohej person tjet\u00ebr i lidhur dhe se ai nuk kishte pasur burime t\u00eb ligjshme p\u00ebr k\u00ebt\u00eb hua.<\/p>\n

Mulaj kund\u00ebrshtoi shumic\u00ebn edhe sa i p\u00ebrket mosdeklarimeve n\u00eb vite t\u00eb ndryshimeve n\u00eb llogarin\u00eb bankare t\u00eb pag\u00ebs dhe ato n\u00eb nj\u00eb llogari t\u00eb p\u00ebrbashk\u00ebt me babain.\u00a0 Mulaj shprehet se n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb rast \u201csubjekti i rivler\u00ebsimit ka kryer fshehje t\u00eb pasuris\u00eb\u201d.<\/p>\n

Q\u00ebndrimi i Mulajt n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb rast doli n\u00eb pah edhe gjat\u00eb seancave gjyq\u00ebsore. N\u00eb cil\u00ebsin\u00eb\u00a0 e relatores Mulaj b\u00ebri nj\u00eb s\u00ebr\u00eb pyetjesh shtes\u00eb<\/a> p\u00ebr Kosov\u00ebn, nj\u00eb pjes\u00eb e t\u00eb cilave ishin parashtruar m\u00eb her\u00ebt nga Komisioneri Publik.<\/p>\n

Pyetjet shkaktuan nj\u00eb p\u00ebrplasje mes saj dhe gjyqtares n\u00eb proces<\/a>. Kosova n\u00eb seanc\u00ebn e p\u00ebrgjigjeve tha se disa nga pyetjet tejkalonin kufijt\u00eb e ankimit dhe se n\u00eb ishin \u201cn\u00eb kufijt\u00eb e paragjykimit\u201d. Ajo po ashtu tha se ato ishin p\u00ebrs\u00ebritje dhe se nj\u00eb pjes\u00eb e p\u00ebrgjigjeve ishin dh\u00ebn\u00eb m\u00eb her\u00ebt dhe \u201cgjendeshin leht\u00ebsisht n\u00eb pyet\u00ebsor\u00eb\u201d.<\/p>\n

Mulaj reagoi me tone t\u00eb ngritura ndaj k\u00ebtij q\u00ebndrimi duke akuzuar gjyqtaren p\u00ebr \u201ctendenc\u00eb t\u00eb pamoralshme\u201d, nd\u00ebrsa deklaroi me ton t\u00eb acaruar z\u00ebri se \u201c\u00e7do subjekt q\u00eb ulet n\u00eb at\u00eb tavolin\u00eb do t\u00eb marr\u00eb at\u00eb q\u00eb meriton,\u201d. Duke iu drejtuar Kosov\u00ebs dhe kund\u00ebrshtuar dyshimet p\u00ebr nj\u00ebanshm\u00ebri ajo shtoi \u201cnuk t\u00eb preket asnj\u00eb fije floku padrejt\u00ebsisht\u201d.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Gjyqtarja e Apelit p\u00ebr Krime t\u00eb R\u00ebnda, Nertina Kosova u konfirmua n\u00eb detyr\u00eb me shumic\u00eb votash, nd\u00ebrsa kryetarja e Kolegjit t\u00eb Posa\u00e7\u00ebm t\u00eb Apelimit, Natasha Mulaj arsyetoi se ajo duhet t\u00eb ishte shkarkuar.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":97,"featured_media":75787,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[13,481,114,473],"tags":[194,107,112,785],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/www.reporter.al\/wp-content\/uploads\/nertian-kosova.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"Kryetarja e Kolegjit te Posacem te Apelimit, KPA, Natasha Mulaj dhe anetaret, Ardian Hajdari, Sokol Como, Rezarta Schuetz, Luan Daci, gjate nje seance te Kolegjit te Posacem te Apelimit (KPA), i cili degjoi ankimin e Komisionerit Publik kunder vendimit te KPK, per konfirmimin ne detyre te gjyqtares, Nertina Kosova.\/r\/n\/r\/nThe President of the Appeal Chamber Natasha Mulaj and members, Ardian Hajdari, Sokol Como, Rezarta Schuetz, Luan Daci, during a session of the Appeal Chamber which has reviewed the complaint of the Public Commissioner against the judge Nertina Kosova.","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75786"}],"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=75786"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75786\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":75788,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75786\/revisions\/75788"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/75787"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=75786"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=75786"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=75786"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}