Trupi gjykues i Kolegjit t\u00eb Posa\u00e7\u00ebm t\u00eb Apelimit, KPA u nda n\u00eb vler\u00ebsimin e ankimit t\u00eb kryer nga Komisioneri Publik, Florian Ballhysa ndaj vendimmarrjes s\u00eb Komisionit p\u00ebr p\u00ebrfundimin e vetingut t\u00eb ish-kryetarit t\u00eb K\u00ebshillit t\u00eb Lart\u00eb t\u00eb Prokuroris\u00eb, Alfred Balla.<\/p>\n
Balla iu n\u00ebnshtrua procesit t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit kalimtar p\u00ebr shkak t\u00eb pun\u00ebs s\u00eb tij si ndihm\u00ebs ligjor n\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebn e Lart\u00eb deri n\u00eb 31 korrik 2017, gj\u00eb q\u00eb p\u00ebrcaktohej nga legjislacioni i vetingut t\u00eb magjistrat\u00ebve.<\/p>\n
N\u00eb Komisionin e Pavarur t\u00eb Kualifikimit, KPK, trupa q\u00eb kreu vetingun e Ball\u00ebs, vler\u00ebsoi n\u00eb shumic\u00eb se ai e kishte humbur statusin e magjistratit pasi ishte shkarkuar nga kreu i Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb n\u00eb korrik 2017 dhe e mbyll\u00ebn procesin e tij pa nj\u00eb vendim p\u00ebrfundimtar.<\/p>\n
Nd\u00ebrsa pakica vler\u00ebsoi se, Balla, p\u00ebr shkak t\u00eb veprimeve t\u00eb tij ishte n\u00eb kushtet e dor\u00ebheqjes e p\u00ebr rrjedhoj\u00eb duhej t\u00eb aplikoheshin dispozitat e nenit \u201cG\u201d t\u00eb aneksit t\u00eb kushtetut\u00ebs q\u00eb p\u00ebrcaktojn\u00eb nd\u00ebrperjen e vetingut me sanksionin q\u00eb i ndalon rikthimin n\u00eb sistemin e drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb p\u00ebr 15 vjet.<\/p>\n
T\u00eb nj\u00ebjtin q\u00ebndrim paraqiti edhe Komisioneri Publik, q\u00eb i k\u00ebrkoi Kolegjit caktimin e sanksionit 15-vje\u00e7ar.<\/p>\n
Debati n\u00eb Kolegj zhvillohet lidhur me pasojat e ardhura p\u00ebr Ball\u00ebn nga nj\u00eb urdh\u00ebr i ish-kryetarit t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb i dat\u00ebs 31 korrik t\u00eb vitit 2017 p\u00ebr largimin e tij nga puna, si pasoj\u00eb e mbarimit t\u00eb mandatit t\u00eb gjyqtarit me t\u00eb cilin punonte, si dhe me veprimet q\u00eb ka kryer p\u00ebr kund\u00ebrshtimin e atij akti administrativ e n\u00eb drejtim t\u00eb procesit t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit kalimtar.<\/p>\n
Sipas shumic\u00ebs s\u00eb trupit gjykues t\u00eb KPA t\u00eb p\u00ebrb\u00ebr\u00eb nga kryesuesja Ina Rama dhe an\u00ebtar\u00ebt Sokol \u00c7omo e Rezarta Schuetz, nga analiza harmonike e veprimeve t\u00eb nd\u00ebrmarra nga subjekti i rivler\u00ebsimit p\u00ebrgjat\u00eb harkut kohor nga p\u00ebrfundimi i marr\u00ebdh\u00ebnies s\u00eb pun\u00ebs n\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebn e Lart\u00eb e deri n\u00eb procesin gjyq\u00ebsor t\u00eb zhvilluar n\u00eb Kolegj, d\u00ebshmon vullnet t\u00eb pavesuar t\u00eb tij p\u00ebr t\u00eb mos iu n\u00ebnshtruar procesit t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit.<\/p>\n
Shumica vler\u00ebson se Balla \u00ebsht\u00eb subjekt rivler\u00ebsimi pasi ka ushtruar detyr\u00ebn e ndihm\u00ebsit ligjor p\u00ebr periudh\u00ebn 2 prill 2012- 31 korrik 2017. N\u00eb vijim, Kolegji rendit gjith\u00eb ngjarjet q\u00eb jan\u00eb marr\u00eb n\u00eb shqyrtim p\u00ebr analiz\u00ebn e k\u00ebsaj \u00e7\u00ebshtjeje, nga urdh\u00ebri i lirimit nga detyra si ndihm\u00ebs ligjor; zgjedhjen e Ball\u00ebs si an\u00ebtar i KLP-s\u00eb m\u00eb 8 shkurt t\u00eb vitit 2018; faktin se kat\u00ebr muaj m\u00eb von\u00eb ai i ka k\u00ebrkuar Komisionit nd\u00ebrprerjen e vetingut, duke u shprehur se nuk i nevojitej meq\u00ebnese nuk ishte m\u00eb ndihm\u00ebs ligjor e se nuk mund t\u00eb ishte m\u00eb subjekt i procesit t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit, pasi tashm\u00eb ishte zgjedhur si an\u00ebtar jo magjistrat i KLP-s\u00eb.<\/p>\n
KPA konstaton se Balla, ndryshe nga sa ka argumentuar n\u00eb korrespondenc\u00ebn me Komisionin n\u00eb qershor t\u00eb vitit 2018, n\u00eb shtator t\u00eb 2020-\u00ebs ka kontestuar urdhrin e lirimit nga detyra si ndihm\u00ebs ligjor n\u00eb nj\u00eb proces gjyq\u00ebsor duke k\u00ebrkuar detyrimin e pal\u00ebs s\u00eb paditur q\u00eb t\u2019i njoh\u00eb t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn e rikthimit n\u00eb pozicionin e k\u00ebshilltarit pas mbarimit t\u00eb mandatit n\u00eb KLP, pasi e g\u00ebzonte k\u00ebt\u00eb status n\u00eb momentin e em\u00ebrimit aty.<\/p>\n
M\u00eb 23 dhjetor t\u00eb vitit 2020, KLGJ-ja ka vendosur t\u00eb pezulloj\u00eb shqyrtimin e nj\u00eb k\u00ebrkese t\u00eb m\u00ebparshme t\u00eb subjektit p\u00ebr njohjen e statusit t\u00eb ndihm\u00ebsit ligjor jomagjistrat pran\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb, me argumentin se k\u00ebrkesa ishte b\u00ebr\u00eb tashm\u00eb objekt i shqyrtimit gjyq\u00ebsor.<\/p>\n
Pas fillimit t\u00eb vetingut n\u00eb dhjetor t\u00eb vitit 2021, Balla depozitoi n\u00eb Komision dy k\u00ebrkesa p\u00ebr pezullim t\u00eb procesit derisa t\u00eb merrte form\u00eb t\u00eb prer\u00eb vendimi gjykat\u00ebs lidhur me k\u00ebrkes\u00ebn e tij p\u00ebr pavlefshm\u00ebrin\u00eb e urdh\u00ebrit t\u00eb kryetarit t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb – k\u00ebrkesa q\u00eb nuk jan\u00eb pranuar.<\/p>\n
Kolegji v\u00ebren se nga verifikimi akteve t\u00eb administruara, ka rezultuar se Balla ka pasur dy linja t\u00eb ndryshme q\u00ebndrimesh, n\u00eb dy drejtime t\u00eb ndryshme institucionale. Nd\u00ebrsa n\u00eb komunikimet e hershme me Komisionin subjekti ka theksuar me forc\u00eb q\u00ebndrimin se p\u00ebr t\u00eb nuk duhet t\u00eb kryhej rivler\u00ebsimi meqen\u00ebse ishte an\u00ebtar i KLP-s\u00eb, n\u00eb gjykatat e juridiksionit t\u00eb zakonsh\u00ebm ai ka pretenduar t\u00eb kund\u00ebrt\u00ebn. Edhe dy vite m\u00eb pas ai ka pretenduar n\u00eb gjykat\u00eb se jo vet\u00ebm i ishin cenuar t\u00eb drejtat financiare t\u00eb pag\u00ebs deri n\u00eb marrjen e detyr\u00ebs n\u00eb KLP, por edhe g\u00ebzonte ende statusin e ndihm\u00ebsit ligjor, detyr\u00eb tek e cila duhej t\u00eb kthehej pas mbarimit t\u00eb mandatit q\u00eb kishte n\u00eb k\u00ebshill, duke e cil\u00ebsuar urdhrin i lirimit nga detyra absolutisht t\u00eb pavlefsh\u00ebm.<\/p>\n
Sipas KPA, k\u00ebto q\u00ebndrime t\u00eb kund\u00ebrta, mund t\u00eb b\u00ebjn\u00eb kuptim vet\u00ebm n\u00ebse shihen si p\u00ebrpjekje e subjektit p\u00ebr t\u00eb pasqyruar rrethanat n\u00eb funksion t\u00eb objektivit n\u00eb k\u00ebrkimet p\u00ebrkat\u00ebse, e jo si pasqyrim i sakt\u00eb i vullnetit t\u00eb tij.<\/p>\n
Po ashtu, sillet n\u00eb v\u00ebmendje se Balla e ka ankimuar vendimin Gjykat\u00ebs Administrative t\u00eb Shkall\u00ebs s\u00eb Par\u00eb Tiran\u00eb t\u00eb vitit 2021, p\u00ebr t\u00eb vetmin aspekt t\u00eb k\u00ebrkes\u00ebpadis\u00eb q\u00eb nuk i \u00ebsht\u00eb pranuar, q\u00eb lidhet me k\u00ebrkes\u00ebn e tij p\u00ebr t\u00eb urdh\u00ebruar Gjykat\u00ebn e Lart\u00eb ta rikthenin n\u00eb detyr\u00ebn e ndihm\u00ebsit ligjor n\u00eb mbarim t\u00eb detyr\u00ebs n\u00eb KLP.<\/p>\n
Nga kjo k\u00ebrkes\u00eb dhe nga padia n\u00eb t\u00ebr\u00ebsi ai rezulton t\u00eb ket\u00eb hequr dor\u00eb afro nj\u00eb vit e gjysm\u00eb m\u00eb von\u00eb, koh\u00eb q\u00eb p\u00ebrkon me p\u00ebrpjekjet e pasuksesshme t\u00eb tij p\u00ebr nd\u00ebrprerjen e procesit t\u00eb vetingut, si dhe pasi kishte depozituar edhe nj\u00eb ankim kund\u00ebr nj\u00eb vendimi t\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebm t\u00eb Komisionit p\u00ebr vijimin e rivler\u00ebsimit t\u00eb tij.<\/p>\n
Sipas shumic\u00ebs, subjekti vijonte t\u00eb pretendonte, t\u00eb pakt\u00ebn deri n\u00eb shkurt 2023, se duhet t\u00eb kthehej n\u00eb detyr\u00ebn e m\u00ebparshme pas mbarimit t\u00eb mandatit. Kjo situat\u00eb p\u00ebrkon dhe vijon deri n\u00eb momentin kur trupit gjykues t\u00eb Komisionit i duhej t\u00eb vijonte rivler\u00ebsimin p\u00ebr t\u00eb, pasi kishte marr\u00eb dy opinione me shkrim nga v\u00ebzhguesi nd\u00ebrkomb\u00ebtar, n\u00eb vijim t\u00eb t\u00eb cilave duhet t\u00eb nd\u00ebrmerrte veprime konkrete.<\/p>\n
Bazuar n\u00eb k\u00ebto rrethana, shumica vler\u00ebson se Balla, jo vet\u00ebm e ka g\u00ebzuar cil\u00ebsin\u00eb e subjektit t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit, por edhe pasi \u00ebsht\u00eb larguar nga puna, ka treguar n\u00ebp\u00ebrmjet q\u00ebndrimeve n\u00eb institucione se kishte p\u00ebr q\u00ebllim t\u00eb rifitonte t\u00eb drejtat m\u00eb t\u00eb cilat shoq\u00ebrohej ajo detyr\u00eb, n\u00eb t\u00eb ardhmen e tij profesionale e n\u00eb aspektin financiar.<\/p>\n
E kund\u00ebrta, sipas Kolegjit, rezulton p\u00ebr detyrimin p\u00ebr t\u00eb ruajtur k\u00ebt\u00eb detyr\u00eb n\u00ebp\u00ebrmjet rivler\u00ebsimit, nga e cila subjekti \u00ebsht\u00eb p\u00ebrpjekur e treguar vullnet t\u00eb qart\u00eb t\u00eb shmangej.<\/p>\n
Shumica konstaton se Balla rezulton t\u00eb ket\u00eb paraqitur nj\u00eb q\u00ebndrim se ai nuk ka pasur m\u00eb vullnet t\u00eb kthehet n\u00eb gjyq\u00ebsor, duke filluar nga shkurti 2023, n\u00ebp\u00ebrmjet t\u00ebrheqjes nga e drejta e padis\u00eb.<\/p>\n
\u201cE th\u00ebn\u00eb me fjal\u00eb t\u00eb tjera, subjekti ka treguar me vullnet t\u00eb pavlesuar d\u00ebshir\u00ebn p\u00ebr t\u00eb q\u00ebndruar n\u00eb sistemin e drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb, por duke anashkaluar detyrimin ligjor p\u00ebr t\u00eb kaluar me sukses rivler\u00ebsimin q\u00eb ishte parakusht p\u00ebr t\u00eb, p\u00ebr shkak t\u00eb detyr\u00ebs s\u00eb m\u00ebparshme. P\u00ebr rrjedhoj\u00eb, \u00ebsht\u00eb e pamundur t\u00eb argumentohet se subjekti i rivler\u00ebsimit hoqi dor\u00eb nga t\u00eb drejtat q\u00eb i buronin nga statusi i ndihm\u00ebsit\/k\u00ebshilltarit ligjor [n\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebn e Lart\u00eb] nga ngjarje q\u00eb nuk vareshin prej tij\u201d, arsyeton Kolegji.<\/p>\n
N\u00eb vijim, KPA ka analizuar m\u00ebnyr\u00ebn e largimit nga puna t\u00eb subjektit, prej nga \u00e7mohet se urdh\u00ebri lirimit i kryetarit t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb \u00ebsht\u00eb nxjerr\u00eb n\u00eb munges\u00eb t\u00eb kompetenc\u00ebs ligjore, si dhe n\u00eb shkelje t\u00eb garancive q\u00eb jepte ligji p\u00ebr vijueshm\u00ebrin\u00eb e marr\u00ebdh\u00ebnies s\u00eb pun\u00ebs p\u00ebr ndihm\u00ebsit ligjor\u00eb. K\u00ebto aspekte sipas shumic\u00ebs, shkaktojn\u00eb pavlefshm\u00ebrin\u00eb absolute t\u00eb atij akti.<\/p>\n
Shumica \u00e7mon e Balla nuk mund t\u00eb humbiste statusin e ndihm\u00ebsit ligjor p\u00ebr shkak t\u00eb k\u00ebtij urdh\u00ebri, por se nj\u00eb gj\u00eb e till\u00eb ka ndodhur si pasoj\u00eb e veprimeve dhe mosveprimeve t\u00eb vet\u00eb subjektit t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit.<\/p>\n
P\u00ebr rrjedhoj\u00eb, shumica e Kolegjit e ka gjetur t\u00eb drejt\u00eb pretendimi Komisionerit Publik dhe ka vendosur nd\u00ebrprerjen e procesit t\u00eb vetingut p\u00ebr Ball\u00ebn, por duke caktuar edhe ndalimin p\u00ebr em\u00ebrimin e tij si gjyqtar ose prokuror i \u00e7do niveli, an\u00ebtar i K\u00ebshillit t\u00eb Lart\u00eb Gjyq\u00ebsor ose i K\u00ebshillit t\u00eb Lart\u00eb t\u00eb Prokuroris\u00eb, Inspektor i Lart\u00eb i Drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb ose Prokuror i P\u00ebrgjithsh\u00ebm p\u00ebr nj\u00eb periudh\u00eb 15-vje\u00e7are.<\/p>\n
Mendimet e pakic\u00ebs<\/strong><\/p>\n Gjyqtarja Albana Shtylla dhe Natasha Mulaj kan\u00eb dal\u00eb n\u00eb pakic\u00eb. Sipas Shtyll\u00ebs, pas heqjes dor\u00eb nga padia nga ana e Ball\u00ebs, Gjykata Administrative e Apelit ka arsyetuar se padit\u00ebsi ka treguar qart\u00eb vullnetin e tij p\u00ebr t\u00eb hequr dor\u00eb t\u00ebr\u00ebsisht nga e drejta e padis\u00eb n\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtjen objekt gjykimi nga p\u00ebr rrjedhoj\u00eb \u00ebsht\u00eb vendosur prishja e vendimit t\u00eb gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Shkall\u00ebs s\u00eb Par\u00eb q\u00eb e kishte pranuar pjes\u00ebrisht dhe rr\u00ebzimin p\u00ebrfundimtar t\u00eb padis\u00eb.<\/p>\n Nisur nga kjo vendimmarrje, Shtylla vler\u00ebson se vendimi i kryetarit t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb i korrikut t\u00eb vitit 2017, p\u00ebr largimin nga detyra t\u00eb Ball\u00ebs, nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb shfuqizuar dhe p\u00ebr pasoj\u00eb ka mbetur n\u00eb fuqi, me t\u00eb gjitha pasojat q\u00eb i ka sjell\u00eb subjektit.<\/p>\n Po ashtu, Shtylla vler\u00ebson se ky urdh\u00ebr ka shkaktuar edhe mbarimin e statusit t\u00eb ndihm\u00ebsit ligjor p\u00ebr subjektin e rivler\u00ebsimit dhe se Balla nuk e g\u00ebzonte m\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb status n\u00eb koh\u00ebn e vendimmarrjes s\u00eb Komisonit.<\/p>\n Ajo \u00e7mon se kjo ishte e vetmja rrethan\u00eb q\u00eb duhej t\u00eb vler\u00ebsohej nga Kolegji n\u00eb marrjen e vendimit p\u00ebr procesin e tij t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit.<\/p>\n N\u00eb vijim, Shtylla vler\u00ebson se vlefshm\u00ebria ose jo e urdh\u00ebrit t\u00eb kryetarit t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb, nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtje e juridiksionit dhe kompetenc\u00ebs s\u00eb organeve t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit. Ajo \u00e7mon se, i r\u00ebnd\u00ebsish\u00ebm \u00ebsht\u00eb vler\u00ebsimi n\u00ebse n\u00eb koh\u00ebn e marrjes prej Komisionit t\u00eb vendimit objekt shqyrtimi, subjekti i rivler\u00ebsimit e kishte humbur statusin e k\u00ebshilltarit ligjor n\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebn e Lart\u00eb, duke argumentuar se organet e rivler\u00ebsimit kan\u00eb n\u00eb kompetenc\u00ebn e tyre, pik\u00ebrisht kryerjen e procesit p\u00ebr subjektet e p\u00ebrcaktuara n\u00eb dispozitat kushtetuese dhe ligjore, p\u00ebrve\u00e7 rasteve kur statusi i tyre ka mbaruar p\u00ebr arsye ligjore apo me dor\u00ebheqje t\u00eb shprehur apo t\u00eb heshtur.<\/p>\n Shtylla vler\u00ebson ndryshe nga Ballhysa dhe shumica edhe p\u00ebr vler\u00ebsimin e urdhrit t\u00eb lirimit, duke \u00e7muar se akti \u00ebsht\u00eb nxjerr\u00eb nga organi kompetent n\u00eb p\u00ebrputhje me p\u00ebrcaktimet e ligjit. Siaps saj, ndihm\u00ebsat ligjor\u00eb kishin marr\u00ebdh\u00ebnie pune me afat sa mandati i gjyqtarit t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb, ku em\u00ebroheshin me urdh\u00ebr t\u00eb kryetarit.<\/p>\n Shtylla vler\u00ebson se legjislacioni i miratuar n\u00eb kuad\u00ebr t\u00eb Reform\u00ebs n\u00eb Drejt\u00ebsi, nuk e ka ndryshuar k\u00ebt\u00eb regjim, pasi dhe n\u00eb ligjin e ri p\u00ebrcaktohet se k\u00ebshilltar\u00ebt ligjor\u00eb vazhdojn\u00eb t\u00eb q\u00ebndrojn\u00eb p\u00ebrkoh\u00ebsisht n\u00eb detyr\u00eb dhe se p\u00ebr arsyet e p\u00ebrfundimit t\u00eb marr\u00ebdh\u00ebnieve t\u00eb pun\u00ebs duhej t\u00eb zbatohej ligji i m\u00ebparsh\u00ebm.<\/p>\n N\u00eb vijim, Shtylla arsyeton se ndihm\u00ebsi ligjor nuk e ka fituar statusin e n\u00ebpun\u00ebsit civil gjyq\u00ebsor me hyrjen n\u00eb fuqi t\u00eb legjislacionit t\u00eb ri p\u00ebr funksionimin e sistemit t\u00eb drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb, pasi p\u00ebr t\u00eb p\u00ebrfituar k\u00ebt\u00eb status ata duhej t\u00eb kalonin me sukses procesin e rivler\u00ebsimit kalimtar.<\/p>\n Bazuar n\u00eb k\u00ebto arsyetime, Shtylla vler\u00ebson se urdhri i nxjerr nga kryetari i Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb, p\u00ebr lirimin nga detyra t\u00eb Ball\u00ebs \u00ebsht\u00eb n\u00eb p\u00ebrputhje me ligjin. P\u00ebr t\u00eb mb\u00ebshtetur k\u00ebt\u00eb vler\u00ebsim, ajo sjell n\u00eb v\u00ebmendje jurisprudenc\u00ebn e Kolegjit Administrativ t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb, q\u00eb sipas Shtyll\u00ebs, ka kryer interpretim t\u00eb nj\u00ebjt\u00eb si ajo n\u00eb nj\u00eb vendim t\u00eb korrikut t\u00eb vitit 2024, ku pal\u00eb padit\u00ebse ka qen\u00eb nj\u00eb ndihm\u00ebse ligjore n\u00eb situat\u00eb faktike t\u00eb nj\u00ebjt\u00eb me Ball\u00ebn.<\/p>\n Po ashtu, Shtylla konstaton se n\u00eb aktet e fashikullit gjyq\u00ebsor nuk gjendet asnj\u00eb akt q\u00eb t\u00eb provoj\u00eb se Balla ka dh\u00ebn\u00eb dor\u00ebheqjen nga detyra e ndihm\u00ebsit ligjor, apo t\u00eb ket\u00eb paraqitur nj\u00eb k\u00ebrkes\u00eb p\u00ebr t\u2019u pun\u00ebsuar n\u00eb nj\u00eb detyr\u00eb tjet\u00ebr, nd\u00ebrkoh\u00eb q\u00eb ishte duke ushtruar at\u00eb funksion.<\/p>\n Heqja dor\u00eb e subjektit nga e drejta e padis\u00eb, \u00e7mohet nga Shtylla si nj\u00eb zgjedhje personale, p\u00ebr t\u00eb hequr dor\u00eb nga zgjidhja e s\u00eb drejt\u00ebs s\u00eb pretenduar se i \u00ebsht\u00eb shkelur, por sipas saj, kurrsesi nuk mund t\u00eb barazohet me nj\u00eb dor\u00ebheqje nga detyra e aq m\u00eb tep\u00ebr, me vullnet p\u00ebr nd\u00ebrprerjen e procesit t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit.<\/p>\n Shtylla ndan q\u00ebndrim t\u00eb ndrysh\u00ebm edhe p\u00ebr sa i p\u00ebrket vler\u00ebsimit t\u00eb shumic\u00ebs se aplikimi i subjektit p\u00ebr t\u2019u zgjedhur si an\u00ebtar i KLP-s\u00eb, n\u00eb vetvete \u00ebsht\u00eb heqje dore nga statusi i k\u00ebshilltarit ligjor dhe shprehje vullneti p\u00ebr karrier\u00eb n\u00eb sistem. Sipas saj, pas urdh\u00ebrit t\u00eb lirimit t\u00eb tij nga detyra, q\u00eb e konsideron t\u00eb ligjsh\u00ebm, Balla kishte t\u00eb drejt\u00ebn p\u00ebr pun\u00eb p\u00ebr t\u00eb garantuar mjetet e jetes\u00ebs p\u00ebr t\u00eb dhe familjen e tij.<\/p>\n N\u00eb p\u00ebrfundim, Shtylla arsyeton se n\u00eb kushtet q\u00eb Balla nuk ka vendosur me vullnetin e tij t\u00eb largohej nga detyra, nuk p\u00ebrmbushen kushtet e p\u00ebrcaktuara n\u00eb nenin G t\u00eb Aneksit t\u00eb Kushtetut\u00ebs q\u00eb sjellin caktimin e sanksionit 15-vje\u00e7ar. Ajo k\u00ebrkon l\u00ebnien n\u00eb fuqi t\u00eb vendimmarrjes s\u00eb Komisionit, pa ndalimin e rikthimit t\u00eb Ball\u00ebs n\u00eb systemin e drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb.<\/p>\n Gjyqtarja tjet\u00ebr n\u00eb pakic\u00eb, Natasha Mulaj vler\u00ebson se n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtje, duhet trajtuar tri momente kryesore, n\u00ebse Balla ishte subjekt i rivler\u00ebsimit n\u00eb momentin e hyrjes n\u00eb fuqi t\u00eb dispozitave kushtetuese dhe ligjore n\u00eb kuad\u00ebr t\u00eb procesit t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit; pasojat ligjore dhe faktike t\u00eb urdhrit t\u00eb vitit 2017 p\u00ebr lrimin e tij nga detyra, si dhe zbatueshm\u00ebria e sanksionit 15-vje\u00e7ar.<\/p>\n Mulaj vler\u00ebson se n\u00eb rastin objekt shqyrtimi, ligjv\u00ebn\u00ebsi ka shprehur qart\u00eb q\u00ebllimin e tij, kur ka p\u00ebrcaktuar me nj\u00eb dispozit\u00eb tranzitore trajtimin e situat\u00ebs juridike t\u00eb k\u00ebshilltar\u00ebve ligjor\u00eb t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb, n\u00eb momentin e hyrjes n\u00eb fuqi t\u00eb legjislacionit t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit kalimtar, duke p\u00ebrcaktuar dy m\u00ebnyra p\u00ebr p\u00ebrfundimin e marr\u00ebdh\u00ebnies s\u00eb pun\u00ebs s\u00eb tyre \u2013 p\u00ebr arsye ligjore dhe moskalimin me sukses t\u00eb procesit t\u00eb vetingut.<\/p>\n Edhe Mulaj, \u00e7mon se urdh\u00ebri i lirimit nga detyra i korrikut t\u00eb vitit 2017, ka sjell\u00eb pasoja ligjore konkrete p\u00ebr Ball\u00ebn. Ajo e gjen t\u00eb pabazuar analiz\u00ebn q\u00eb shumica e trupit gjykues i b\u00ebn k\u00ebtij urdhri n\u00eb drejtim t\u00eb konstatimit t\u00eb pavlefshm\u00ebris\u00eb absolute t\u00eb tij, duke argumentuar se nj\u00eb analiz\u00eb e till\u00eb tejkalon juridiksionin dhe kompetenc\u00ebn e KPA.<\/p>\n Ashtu si Shtylla, edhe Mulaj vler\u00ebson se p\u00ebrfundimi i marr\u00ebdh\u00ebnies s\u00eb pun\u00ebs s\u00eb Ball\u00ebs me Gjykat\u00ebn e Lart\u00eb ka ardhur p\u00ebr arsye ligjore, t\u00eb pavarura prej tij.<\/p>\n Duke iu referuar jurispudenc\u00ebs s\u00eb KPA, Mulaj vler\u00ebson se ky rast p\u00ebrjashtohet nga klasifikimi i heqjes dor\u00eb sipas nenit G t\u00eb Aneksit t\u00eb Kushtetut\u00ebs. Ajo sjell n\u00eb v\u00ebmendje se kur Balla kishte aplikuar p\u00ebr pozicionin e an\u00ebtarit t\u00eb KLP-s\u00eb, i ishte shk\u00ebputur marr\u00ebdh\u00ebnia financiare nga Gjykata e Lart\u00eb. Po ashtu, v\u00ebren se ai ka aplikuar si pjes\u00eb e shoq\u00ebris\u00eb cicile, pasi ligji nuk kishte t\u00eb p\u00ebrcaktuar se ndihm\u00ebsit ligjor kan\u00eb t\u00eb drejt\u00eb t\u00eb kalojn\u00eb n\u00eb nj\u00eb detyr\u00eb tjet\u00ebr t\u00eb barasvlershme apo t\u00eb vazhdonin detyr\u00ebn aty edhe pas mbarimit t\u00eb mandatit t\u00eb gjyqtarit t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb.<\/p>\n Veprimet e Ball\u00ebs, Mulaj \u00e7mon se duhen vler\u00ebsuar si domosdoshm\u00ebri n\u00eb drejtim t\u00eb p\u00ebrcaktimit t\u00eb ecuris\u00eb profesionale t\u00eb tij. N\u00eb p\u00ebrfundim edhe ajo e vler\u00ebson t\u00eb pabazuar n\u00eb ligj e prova vendimmarrjen e shumic\u00ebs p\u00ebr vendosjen e sanksionit.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Trupi gjykues i Kolegjit t\u00eb Posa\u00e7\u00ebm t\u00eb Apelimit, KPA u nda n\u00eb vler\u00ebsimin e ankimit t\u00eb kryer nga Komisioneri Publik, Florian Ballhysa ndaj vendimmarrjes s\u00eb Komisionit p\u00ebr p\u00ebrfundimin e vetingut t\u00eb ish-kryetarit t\u00eb K\u00ebshillit t\u00eb Lart\u00eb t\u00eb Prokuroris\u00eb, Alfred Balla. Balla iu n\u00ebnshtrua procesit t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit kalimtar p\u00ebr shkak t\u00eb pun\u00ebs s\u00eb tij si ndihm\u00ebs […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":637,"featured_media":79539,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[13,204,114,115],"tags":[407,1021,145,789,992,1907,908,996,101,1719,221,171,1914,674,1219,989,903],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/www.reporter.al\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/06\/20230607_190624_070623_5_021-1_V0CBdOD.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"Kryetari i K\u00ebshillit t\u00eb Lart\u00eb t\u00eb Prokuroris\u00eb, Alfred Balla duke folur gjat\u00eb nj\u00eb seance t\u00eb komisionit parlamentar per \u00c7\u00ebshtjet Ligjore, Administrat\u00ebn Publike dhe te Drejtat e Njeriut | Foto: LSA","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/79538"}],"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=79538"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/79538\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":79540,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/79538\/revisions\/79540"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/79539"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=79538"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=79538"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=79538"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}