{"id":75927,"date":"2019-06-24T19:55:30","date_gmt":"2019-06-24T17:55:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/rivleresimi-i-regleta-panajotit-kpk-ngre-pikepyetje-mbi-pasurine-dhe-profesionalizmin\/2019\/06\/24\/"},"modified":"2023-04-07T11:49:07","modified_gmt":"2023-04-07T09:49:07","slug":"rivleresimi-i-regleta-panajotit-kpk-ngre-pikepyetje-mbi-pasurine-dhe-profesionalizmin","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/rivleresimi-i-regleta-panajotit-kpk-ngre-pikepyetje-mbi-pasurine-dhe-profesionalizmin\/2019\/06\/24\/","title":{"rendered":"Rivler\u00ebsimi i Regleta Panajotit, KPK ngre pik\u00ebpyetje mbi pasurin\u00eb dhe profesionalizmin"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>Komisioni i Pavarur i Kualifikimit ngriti pik\u00ebpyetje mbi mund\u00ebsit\u00eb financiare t\u00eb gjyqtares s\u00eb Tiran\u00ebs Regleta Panajoti, nj\u00ebkoh\u00ebsisht kandidate p\u00ebr n\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebn Kushtetuese, nd\u00ebrsa nj\u00eb denoncim u vu n\u00eb dukje si problem n\u00eb kriterin e aft\u00ebsive profesionale. Panajoti dha shpjegime mbi pasurin\u00eb, duke kund\u00ebrshtuar gjetjet e KPK dhe k\u00ebrkoi t\u00eb konfirmohej.<!--more--><\/p>\n<figure id=\"attachment_63360\" aria-describedby=\"caption-attachment-63360\" style=\"width: 640px\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\"><a href=\"https:\/\/www.reporter.al\/wp-content\/uploads\/regleta-panajorti.jpg\"><img decoding=\"async\" loading=\"lazy\" class=\"size-full wp-image-63360\" src=\"https:\/\/www.reporter.al\/wp-content\/uploads\/regleta-panajorti.jpg\" alt=\"\" width=\"640\" height=\"480\" data-id=\"63360\" \/><\/a><figcaption id=\"caption-attachment-63360\" class=\"wp-caption-text\">Rivler\u00ebsimi i gjyqtares Regleta Panajoti | Foto : Vladimir Karaj<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<p>Mungesa e t\u00eb ardhurave p\u00ebr t\u00eb kryer disa blerje n\u00eb pasuri t\u00eb patundshme dhe nj\u00eb prej denoncimeve nga publiku, u duk\u00ebn si problemet kryesore gjat\u00eb seanc\u00ebs d\u00ebgjimore ndaj gjyqtares s\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Tiran\u00ebs Regleta Panajoti.<\/p>\n<p>Trupa gjykuese q\u00eb po kryen procesin e vetingut p\u00ebr Panajotin p\u00ebrb\u00ebhet nga Genta Tafa Bungo kryesuese, Valbona Sanxhaktari, an\u00ebtare dhe Lulzim Hamitaj relator, theksuan se ndaj kandidates p\u00ebr nj\u00eb nga vendet n\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebn Kushtetuese ishte b\u00ebr\u00eb hetimi n\u00eb t\u00eb tre kriteret.<\/p>\n<p>Sipas relatimit Panajotit i mungonin 3.9 milion lek\u00eb p\u00ebr t\u00eb justifikuar investimet e b\u00ebra, nd\u00ebrsa nga nj\u00eb prej denoncimeve u gjet se nj\u00eb vendim i nj\u00eb trupe gjykuese n\u00eb t\u00eb cil\u00ebn ajo ishte pjes\u00eb p\u00ebr pjes\u00ebtim pasurie, kishte probleme.<\/p>\n<p>Panajoti kund\u00ebrshtoi gjat\u00eb fjal\u00ebs s\u00eb saj q\u00ebndrimin e KPK mbi deklarimin e kursimeve cash n\u00eb vite, duke th\u00ebn\u00eb se nuk kishte pasur detyrim ligjor t\u2019i deklaronte ato. Ajo tha se kishte sjell\u00eb prova p\u00ebr t\u00eb treguar pun\u00ebn e bashk\u00ebshortit n\u00eb emigracion dhe k\u00ebmb\u00ebnguli q\u00eb ato t\u00eb ardhura t\u00eb deklaroheshin t\u00eb ligjshme.<\/p>\n<p>Regleta Panajoti e ka nisur karrier\u00ebn n\u00eb sistemin e drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb n\u00eb vitin 2000 dhe punon prej gati dy dekadash n\u00eb gjykat\u00ebn e shkall\u00ebs s\u00eb par\u00eb n\u00eb Tiran\u00eb. Ajo ka kandiduar n\u00eb dy thirrje t\u00eb hapura p\u00ebr t\u00eb plot\u00ebsuar vendet vakante t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs Kushtetuese, nd\u00ebrkoh\u00eb q\u00eb procesi i vler\u00ebsimit t\u00eb kandidat\u00ebve \u00ebsht\u00eb duke u kryer nga K\u00ebshilli i Em\u00ebrimeve n\u00eb Drejt\u00ebsi.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Rivler\u00ebsimi i pasurive<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Relatori i \u00e7\u00ebshtjes Lulzim Hamitaj vuri n\u00eb dukje nj\u00eb s\u00ebr\u00eb gjetjesh t\u00eb KPK n\u00eb procesin e rivler\u00ebsimit t\u00eb Panajotit. Hamitaj p\u00ebrmendi nd\u00ebr t\u00eb tjera se pas hetimit kishte rezultuar se p\u00ebr nj\u00eb apartament 104 metra pran\u00eb rrug\u00ebs s\u00eb Durr\u00ebsit n\u00eb Tiran\u00eb \u201cdukej se ajo dhe i shoqi kan\u00eb pasur munges\u00eb burimesh financiare p\u00ebr t\u00eb p\u00ebrballuar \u00e7mimin e plot\u00eb p\u00ebr t\u00eb bler\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb apartament\u201d.<\/p>\n<p>Sipas relatorit Panajoti kishte deklaruar p\u00ebr veting t\u00eb ardhura nga emigracioni n\u00eb shum\u00ebn 3.5 milion lek\u00eb. Hamitaj tha se ishin k\u00ebrkuar sqarime p\u00ebr periudh\u00ebn e pun\u00ebs n\u00eb Greqi dhe se Panajoti kishte sjell\u00eb shpjegimet e saj dhe argumente e dokumente.<\/p>\n<p>Deklarimi si burim p\u00ebr k\u00ebt\u00eb pasuri t\u00eb t\u00eb ardhurave nga biznesi i t\u00eb shoqit n\u00eb Gjirokast\u00ebr po ashtu u gjet\u00ebn nga hetimi me probleme. Sipas relatori kompania n\u00eb fjal\u00eb nuk kishte ndar\u00eb divident dhe nuk rezultonin fitime t\u00eb deklaruara n\u00eb tatime. Hamitaj tha se kishin marr\u00eb shpjegime nga Panajoti mbi k\u00ebt\u00eb problem.<\/p>\n<p>Duke n\u00ebnkuptuar se kjo munges\u00eb burimesh p\u00ebr apartamentin n\u00eb fjal\u00eb dhe p\u00ebr nj\u00eb apartament t\u00eb dyt\u00eb, kishte t\u00eb b\u00ebnte kryesisht me faktin n\u00ebse merreshin n\u00eb konsiderat\u00eb apo jo t\u00eb ardhurat nga emigracioni, Panajoti i tha KPK se kishte sjell\u00eb prova p\u00ebr t\u00eb d\u00ebshmuar k\u00ebt\u00eb.<\/p>\n<p>Ajo foli me detaje duke p\u00ebrmendur nd\u00ebr t\u00eb tjera faktin se n\u00eb koh\u00ebn kur ajo pretendonte q\u00eb bashk\u00ebshorti kishte punuar n\u00eb Greqi emigrant, f\u00ebmija i tyre kishte kryer vizita mjek\u00ebsore n\u00eb Veria t\u00eb Greqis\u00eb.<\/p>\n<p>Panajoti p\u00ebrmendi po ashtu dokumente pun\u00ebsimi t\u00eb bashk\u00ebshortit dhe nj\u00eb lib\u00ebr sh\u00ebndeti f\u00ebmije t\u00eb l\u00ebshuara nga shteti grek t\u00eb cilat i viheshin n\u00eb dispozicion KPK. Ajo tregoi ekzistenc\u00ebn e nj\u00eb llogarie bankare n\u00eb nj\u00eb bank\u00eb t\u00eb nivelit t\u00eb dyt\u00eb, parat\u00eb n\u00eb t\u00eb cil\u00ebn ishin depozituar me p\u00ebrshkrimin: \u2018para t\u00eb fituara n\u00eb emigracion.\u2019 Panajoti k\u00ebmb\u00ebnguli se emigracioni kishte qen\u00eb p\u00ebr ta nj\u00eb p\u00ebrpjekje p\u00ebr ekzistenc\u00eb dhe se kjo duhej mbajtur n\u00eb konsiderat\u00eb.<\/p>\n<p>Nj\u00eb s\u00ebr\u00eb pasurish t\u00eb gjyqtares t\u00eb p\u00ebrfituara prej trash\u00ebgimis\u00eb s\u00eb saj nga n\u00ebna apo prej t\u00eb af\u00ebrmve t\u00eb bashk\u00ebshortit u provuan pa probleme gjat\u00eb hetimit nga KPK.<\/p>\n<p>Megjithat\u00eb Komisioni ngriti nj\u00eb s\u00ebr\u00eb pik\u00ebpyetjesh mbi kursimet e deklaruara nga gjyqtarja. KPK vuri n\u00eb dukje se ajo nuk kishte deklaruar kursime cash deri n\u00eb vitin 2016 dhe n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb vit kishte deklaruar 3500 euro. K\u00ebto kursime ishin t\u00eb justifikuara sipas relatorit Hamitaj. Por n\u00eb deklarat\u00ebn veting, Panajoti kishte shtuar se si vler\u00eb cash kishte nj\u00eb shum\u00eb prej 5500 euro.<\/p>\n<p>Hamitaj vuri n\u00eb dukje se diferenca n\u00eb koh\u00eb prej deklarimit t\u00eb vitit 2016 deri n\u00eb deklarimin veting nuk ia kishte mund\u00ebsuar Panajotit kursimin e shtes\u00ebs prej 2 mij\u00eb euro. Ai tha se gjyqtarja kishte sjell\u00eb shpjegime p\u00ebr k\u00ebt\u00eb rast.<\/p>\n<p>Po ashtu ai vuri n\u00eb dukje se nj\u00eb shum\u00eb prej 12 mij\u00eb USD q\u00eb ishte depozituar dhe t\u00ebrhequr nga banka n\u00eb vitin 2007 e padeklaruar n\u00eb at\u00eb koh\u00eb dhe e deklaruar pas k\u00ebrkes\u00ebs nga KPK n\u00eb veting, nuk rezultoi t\u00eb kishte burime. Ngjashm, \u00a0KPK vuri n\u00eb dukje se Panajoti kishte deklaruar si burime t\u00eb kursimeve, shuma parash q\u00eb ishin deklaruar si t\u00eb p\u00ebrdorura m\u00eb par\u00eb n\u00eb transaksione t\u00eb tjera.<\/p>\n<p>Hamitaj theksoi se gjyqtares sipas analiz\u00ebs financiare t\u00eb KPK i mungonin 3.9 milion lek\u00eb p\u00ebr t\u00eb kryer investimet dhe realizuar kursimet e deklaruara prej saj.<\/p>\n<p>Panajoti u fokusua gjat\u00eb n\u00eb vler\u00ebsimin e kursimeve t\u00eb familjes. Ajo b\u00ebri nj\u00eb pasqyr\u00eb t\u00eb detajuar t\u00eb t\u00eb ardhurave t\u00eb saj dhe t\u00eb bashk\u00ebshortit, nd\u00ebrsa k\u00ebmb\u00ebnguli se mosdeklarimi i gjendjes cash n\u00eb vite nuk mund t\u00eb konsiderohej penalizues.<\/p>\n<p>Gjyqtarja deklaroi se megjith\u00ebse nuk ishte deklaruar kjo shum\u00eb kishte ekzistuar. Sipas ligjit tha ajo shuma cash nuk kishte qen\u00eb detyrim p\u00ebr deklarim deri n\u00eb vitin 2014. Ajo tha se ky detyrim ishte p\u00ebrfshir\u00eb specifikisht n\u00eb vitin 2014, duke k\u00ebrkuar deklarimin e t\u00eb ardhurave \u201cjasht\u00eb sistemit bankar\u201d.<\/p>\n<p>Ajo tha se nuk kishte pasur asnj\u00eb penges\u00eb p\u00ebr t\u00eb mos i deklaruar kursimet cash, por k\u00ebmb\u00ebnguli se ato vinin nga burime t\u00eb ligjshme si pagat.<\/p>\n<p>Panajoti i k\u00ebrkoi KPK q\u00eb t\u00eb konsideronte si mund\u00ebsi kursimi t\u00eb saj dhe bashk\u00ebshortit shum\u00ebn e t\u00eb ardhurave t\u00eb tyre q\u00eb mbetej pas zbritjes s\u00eb shpenzimeve minimale jetike p\u00ebr vitet (2002-2007) p\u00ebr t\u00eb cilat ishte b\u00ebr\u00eb analiza. Sipas saj vet\u00ebm nga k\u00ebto t\u00eb ardhura ajo dhe bashk\u00ebshorti kishin pasur mund\u00ebsi t\u00eb kursenin 64 mij\u00eb euro, duke konsideruar si shpenzime p\u00ebr k\u00ebt\u00eb periudh\u00eb vet\u00ebm shum\u00eb prej rreth 4 milion lek\u00ebsh.<\/p>\n<p>N\u00eb fjal\u00ebn e saj Panajoti p\u00ebrmendi dy vendime t\u00eb KPK q\u00eb sipas saj mb\u00ebshtesnin at\u00eb n\u00eb q\u00ebndrim. Ajo tha se e nj\u00ebjta trup\u00eb nuk kishte mbajtur q\u00ebndrim penalizues ndaj gjykat\u00ebsit E.R., i cili kishte mbajtur cash n\u00eb sht\u00ebpi shum\u00ebn prej 18.500 euro t\u00eb p\u00ebrfituar nga nj\u00eb shitje. BIRN kuptoi se b\u00ebhej fjal\u00eb p\u00ebr rastin <a href=\"http:\/\/kpk.al\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/03\/Vendim-Eriol-Roshi.pdf\">e kreut t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs Administrative Eriol Roshi<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>N\u00eb p\u00ebrgjigje t\u00eb k\u00ebtij pretendimi an\u00ebtarja e trup\u00ebs Valbona Sanxhaktari replikoi me Panajotin, duke i th\u00ebn\u00eb se dy rastet nuk ngjanin dhe i tha se nuk ishte korrekte n\u00eb at\u00eb q\u00eb kishte th\u00ebn\u00eb. Sanxhaktari i tha subjektit se ajo mund ta p\u00ebrdorte k\u00ebt\u00eb n\u00eb rast se do i duhej t\u00eb ankimonte vendimin, por i sugjeroi q\u00eb n\u00eb seanc\u00eb d\u00ebgjimore t\u00eb p\u00ebrgjigjej p\u00ebr ato \u00e7\u00ebshtje q\u00eb i ishte kaluar barra e prov\u00ebs.<\/p>\n<p>\u201cJu duhet t\u00eb provonin t\u00eb kund\u00ebrt\u00ebn e barr\u00ebs s\u00eb prov\u00ebs p\u00ebr ju\u201d, tha Sanxhaktari.<\/p>\n<p>Panajoti po ashtu p\u00ebrmendi si shembull konfirmimin nga KPK t\u00eb gjyqtarit A.D (BIRN kuptoi se b\u00ebhej fjal\u00eb p\u00ebr Ardian Dvoranin), i cili tha ajo kryeson K\u00ebshillin e Em\u00ebrimeve n\u00eb Drejt\u00ebsi dhe q\u00eb sipas saj kishte kaluar edhe pse kishte pasur munges\u00eb deklarimi likujditetesh.<\/p>\n<p>N\u00eb p\u00ebrgjigje t\u00eb nj\u00eb pyetje nga Hamitaj, Panajoti shpjegoi se \u00e7mimi i v\u00ebn\u00eb n\u00eb nj\u00eb kontrat\u00eb shitjeje p\u00ebr nj\u00eb pron\u00eb n\u00eb Kor\u00e7\u00eb ishte nj\u00eb \u00e7mim i reduktuar dhe se reduktimi i \u00e7mimit n\u00eb kontrat\u00eb nuk ishte b\u00ebr\u00eb prej saj, por prej dajallar\u00ebve q\u00eb kishin pjes\u00ebn e tyre n\u00eb pasuri. Panajoti tha se ajo nuk mund t\u00eb imponohej n\u00eb kontrat\u00ebn n\u00eb fjal\u00eb.<\/p>\n<p>Drejtuesja e trup\u00ebs gjykuese i k\u00ebrkoi Panajotit disa her\u00eb t\u00eb fokusohej te \u00e7\u00ebshtjet p\u00ebr t\u00eb cilat i ishte kaluar barra e prov\u00ebs, duke i v\u00ebn\u00eb n\u00eb dukje se nj\u00eb pjes\u00eb e fjal\u00ebs s\u00eb saj megjith\u00ebse do t\u00eb konsiderohej nga KPK, nuk ishte mbi pik\u00ebpyetjet q\u00eb ishin ngritur n\u00eb relatim.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Profesionalizmi dhe DSIK<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>N\u00eb seanc\u00eb mbeti pa p\u00ebrgjigje dyshimet e ngritura mbi profesionalizmin gjat\u00eb relatimit t\u00eb Hamitaj. Ky i fundit vuri n\u00eb dukje se, nd\u00ebrsa nga 11 denoncime, 10 kishin rezultuar pa prova dhe probleme, nj\u00eb prej tyre ishte marr\u00eb n\u00eb shqyrtim nga Komisioni.<\/p>\n<p>Hamitaj tha se denoncuesi akuzonte gjyqtaren se nuk kishte marr\u00eb parasysh nj\u00eb testament dhe kishte b\u00ebr\u00eb pjes\u00ebtim t\u00eb padrejt\u00eb t\u00eb pasuris\u00eb. Relatori vuri n\u00eb dukje se megjith\u00ebse n\u00eb nj\u00eb seanc\u00eb n\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebn e Tiran\u00ebs ishte pranuar depozitimi i testametit, n\u00eb vendimin e marr\u00eb nga Panajoti dhe koleg\u00ebt nuk b\u00ebhet me dije n\u00ebse ishte konsideruar testamenti dhe \u00e7far\u00eb ishte b\u00ebr\u00eb me t\u00eb.<\/p>\n<p>Hamitaj vuri po ashtu n\u00eb dukje se Gjykata e Lart\u00eb n\u00eb vendim p\u00ebr k\u00ebt\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtje e kishte konstatuar si mang\u00ebsi mosmarrjen n\u00eb konsiderat\u00eb t\u00eb testamentit dhe e kishte cil\u00ebsuar pjes\u00ebtimin e pasuris\u00eb si t\u00eb padrejt\u00eb.<\/p>\n<p>N\u00eb seanc\u00eb nuk pati shpjegim rreth k\u00ebtij momenti nga gjyqtarja. Hamitaj tha se ajo i kishte dh\u00ebn\u00eb shpjegimet e saj trup\u00ebs gjykuese. Nd\u00ebrkoh\u00eb, Panajoti rezultoi pa probleme sa i p\u00ebrket past\u00ebrtis\u00eb s\u00eb figur\u00ebs.<\/p>\n<p>N\u00eb fund t\u00eb seanc\u00ebs ajo k\u00ebrkoi t\u00eb konfirmohej n\u00eb detyr\u00eb. Panajoti tha se kishte besim q\u00eb trupa gjykuese do ta konfirmonte at\u00eb, p\u00ebr shkak t\u00eb pun\u00ebs q\u00eb ajo kishte b\u00ebr\u00eb p\u00ebr 20 vjet.<\/p>\n<!-- AddThis Advanced Settings generic via filter on the_content --><!-- AddThis Share Buttons generic via filter on the_content -->","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Komisioni i Pavarur i Kualifikimit ngriti pik\u00ebpyetje mbi mund\u00ebsit\u00eb financiare t\u00eb gjyqtares s\u00eb Tiran\u00ebs Regleta Panajoti, nj\u00ebkoh\u00ebsisht kandidate p\u00ebr n\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebn Kushtetuese, nd\u00ebrsa nj\u00eb denoncim u vu n\u00eb dukje si problem n\u00eb kriterin e aft\u00ebsive profesionale. Panajoti dha shpjegime mbi pasurin\u00eb, duke kund\u00ebrshtuar gjetjet e KPK dhe k\u00ebrkoi t\u00eb konfirmohej.<!-- AddThis Advanced Settings generic via filter on get_the_excerpt --><!-- AddThis Share Buttons generic via filter on get_the_excerpt --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":97,"featured_media":75928,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[204,117,2,473],"tags":[248,107,171,720],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/www.reporter.al\/wp-content\/uploads\/regleta-panajorti.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"Rivler\u00ebsimi i gjyqtares Regleta Panajoti, e cila mungoi ne seance | Foto : Vladimir Karaj","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75927"}],"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=75927"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75927\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":75929,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/75927\/revisions\/75929"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/75928"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=75927"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=75927"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=75927"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}