Kolegji i Posa\u00e7\u00ebm i Apelimit, KPA u nda n\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtjen e vetingut t\u00eb gjyqtarit t\u00eb Vlor\u00ebs, Laurent Fu\u00e7ia, si n\u00eb vler\u00ebsimin e shkaqeve t\u00eb ankimit ndaj vendimmarrjes s\u00eb Komisionit t\u00eb Pavarur t\u00eb Kualifikimit p\u00ebr konfirmimin e tij, ashtu dhe lidhur me m\u00ebnyr\u00ebn e p\u00ebrfundimit t\u00eb procesit. \u00a0Shumica e trupit gjykues t\u00eb KPA e p\u00ebrb\u00ebr\u00eb nga gjyqtar\u00ebt Ina Rama, Rezarta Schuetz, Mimoza Tasi e Sokol \u00c7omo, vler\u00ebsuan se problemet n\u00eb aspektin profesional nuk ishin shkarkuese, ashtu si k\u00ebrkoi Komisioneri Publik dhe vler\u00ebsoi n\u00eb pakic\u00eb gjyqtarja Natasha Mulaj.<\/p>\n
Fu\u00e7ia u detyra t\u00eb ndiqte trajnimin nj\u00eb vje\u00e7ar n\u00eb Shkoll\u00ebn e Magjistratur\u00ebs dhe pasi arriti rezultat t\u00eb mir\u00eb, shumica e konfirmoi n\u00eb detyr\u00eb. Edhe n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb rast, gjyqtarja Mulaj doli n\u00eb pakic\u00eb, duke \u00e7muar se konfirmimin n\u00eb detyr\u00eb pas trajnimit t\u00eb detyruar e kryen Komisioni, por n\u00eb kushtet q\u00eb k\u00ebtij institucioni i kishte p\u00ebrfunduar mandati, sipas p\u00ebrcaktimeve kushtetuese e ligjore, duhej q\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtja t\u00eb d\u00ebrgohej p\u00ebr t\u2019u p\u00ebrfunduar pran\u00eb K\u00ebshillit t\u00eb Lart\u00eb Gjyq\u00ebsor, KLGJ.<\/p>\n
Konkluzionet e ndryshme p\u00ebr profesionalizmin<\/strong><\/p>\n Laurent Fu\u00e7ia u konfirmua n\u00eb detyr\u00eb nga KPK m\u00eb 8 mars 2023, pasi u konkludua se kishte arritur nivel t\u00eb besuesh\u00ebm p\u00ebr pasurin\u00eb dhe past\u00ebrtin\u00eb e figur\u00ebs, nd\u00ebrsa p\u00ebr mang\u00ebsit\u00eb n\u00eb aspektin profesional u \u00e7mua se nuk mund t\u00eb konsideroheshin serioze dhe as t\u00eb p\u00ebrs\u00ebritura n\u00eb m\u00ebnyr\u00eb t\u00eb vazhdueshme.<\/p>\n Sipas Komisionit, veprimet e subjektit n\u00eb gjykimin e \u00e7\u00ebshtjeve nuk kan\u00eb qen\u00eb t\u00eb q\u00ebllimshme dhe n\u00eb kund\u00ebrshtim t\u00eb hapur me ligjin apo me praktikat unifikuese t\u00eb gjykatave m\u00eb t\u00eb larta. P\u00ebr rrjedhoj\u00eb, n\u00eb vler\u00ebsimin t\u00ebr\u00ebsor t\u00eb kriterit t\u00eb vler\u00ebsimit t\u00eb aft\u00ebsive profesionale, n\u00eb p\u00ebrfundim u konkludua se Fu\u00e7ia \u00ebsht\u00eb i aft\u00eb profesionalisht.<\/p>\n Por, Operacioni Nd\u00ebrkomb\u00ebtar i Monitorimit, ONM \u00e7moi se vler\u00ebsimi i sakt\u00eb i provave t\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtjes dhe zbatimi korrekt i kuadrit ligjor p\u00ebrkat\u00ebs, do t\u2019i jap\u00eb baz\u00eb Kolegjit t\u00eb Posa\u00e7\u00ebm t\u00eb Apelimit q\u00eb t\u00eb rr\u00ebzoj\u00eb vendimin e Komisionit.<\/p>\n Bazuar n\u00eb rekomandimin e ONM-s\u00eb, Komisioneri Publik, Florian Ballhysa k\u00ebrkoi shkarkimin e Fu\u00e7is\u00eb, me arsyetimin se ky subjekt rivler\u00ebsimi gjendej n\u00eb kushtet e pap\u00ebrshtatshm\u00ebris\u00eb profesionale dhe n\u00eb at\u00eb t\u00eb c\u00ebnimit t\u00eb besimit t\u00eb publikut te sistemi i drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb.<\/p>\n Nj\u00eb prej \u00e7\u00ebshtjeve kryesore t\u00eb trajtuara n\u00eb ankim, kishte t\u00eb b\u00ebnte me dy vendime penale, nj\u00eb p\u00ebr revokimin e arrestit dhe tjetra p\u00ebr shuarjen e mas\u00ebs s\u00eb siguris\u00eb ndaj nj\u00eb personi t\u00eb k\u00ebrkuar p\u00ebr ekstradim. Sipas Komisioneri Publik, subjekti kishte interpretuar gabim p\u00ebrcaktimet e Kodit t\u00eb Procedur\u00ebs Penale, pasi nj\u00eb vendim i Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Apelit Vlor\u00eb, q\u00eb kishte vendosur miratimin e ekstradimit t\u00eb atij personi, duhej t\u00eb konsiderohej i form\u00ebs s\u00eb prer\u00eb dhe i ekzekutuesh\u00ebm.<\/p>\n Megjith\u00ebse shumica konstatoi mang\u00ebsi n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtje gjeti pjes\u00ebrisht t\u00eb bazuar pretendimin e subjektit se, n\u00eb analiz\u00ebn e vendimarrjes ka konsideruar nj\u00eb vendim t\u00eb GjEDNj-s\u00eb, lidhur me parimin e prezumimit t\u00eb liris\u00eb s\u00eb individ\u00ebve q\u00eb parashikon Kushtetuta dhe Konventa Evropiane p\u00ebr t\u00eb Drejtat e Njeriut, n\u00eb raportin mes koh\u00ebzgjatjes s\u00eb procesit t\u00eb ekstradimit dhe periudh\u00ebs s\u00eb kufizimit t\u00eb liris\u00eb.<\/p>\n Sipas shumic\u00ebs, interpretimi i norm\u00ebs ligjore nga subjekti u vler\u00ebsua nga trupi gjykues n\u00ebn drit\u00ebn e garancive themelore t\u00eb individ\u00ebve n\u00eb procesin penal, kundrejt interesit publik n\u00eb funksion t\u00eb dh\u00ebnies s\u00eb drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb. Par\u00eb n\u00ebn k\u00ebt\u00eb k\u00ebndv\u00ebshtrim, trupi gjykues i Kolegjit vler\u00ebsoi se gabimet e interpretimit jan\u00eb t\u00eb nj\u00eb natyre q\u00eb mund t\u00eb sh\u00ebrohen n\u00ebp\u00ebrmjet programit t\u00eb trajnimit.<\/p>\n Mulaj n\u00eb pakic\u00eb, shpreh dakord\u00ebsi me konkluzionin e Komisionerit Publik se, nga hetimi ka rezultuar se Fu\u00e7ia ka marr\u00eb dy vendime n\u00eb intepretim t\u00eb gabuar t\u00eb norm\u00ebs procedurale, n\u00eb vitin 2012 dhe 2014, duke b\u00ebr\u00eb p\u00ebrs\u00ebritje, si dhe n\u00eb c\u00ebnim t\u00eb parimit t\u00eb \u201cgj\u00ebs\u00eb s\u00eb gjykuar\u201d.<\/p>\n \u201cEdhe n\u00ebse konsiderojm\u00eb pretendimet e subjektit se n\u00eb koh\u00ebn e marrjes s\u00eb vendimit nr. {***}, dat\u00eb 9.8.2012, neni 493, pika 4 (para ndryshimeve t\u00eb vitit 2017) e K.Pr.Penale, ishte e paqart\u00eb lidhur me afatin 3-mujor p\u00ebr revokimin e mas\u00ebs s\u00eb siguris\u00eb, s\u00ebrish rezulton se subjekti i rivler\u00ebsimit ishte n\u00eb dijeni t\u00eb interpretimit t\u00eb b\u00ebr\u00eb k\u00ebsaj dispozite, nga gjykatat m\u00eb t\u00eb larta, kur mori vendimin nr. {***}, dat\u00eb 16.7.2014\u201d, konstaton Mulaj dhe argumenton se keqintepretimi i subjektit p\u00ebr kalimin e afatit 3-mujor, ka ndodhur p\u00ebr shkak se ai ka lidhur afatin me faktin se nuk kishte nj\u00eb vendim p\u00ebrfundimtar mbi miratimin e ekstradimit dhe jo me shqyrtimin e k\u00ebrkesave mbi masat e siguris\u00eb.<\/p>\n Sipas Mulajt, veprimet e gjyqtarit n\u00eb thelb nuk kan\u00eb t\u00eb b\u00ebjn\u00eb me mosnjohje t\u00eb ligjit, por me favorizimin e personit ndaj t\u00eb cilit k\u00ebrkohet ekstradimi.<\/p>\n Komisioneri ka grupuar n\u00eb ankim n\u00ebnt\u00eb vendime t\u00eb marra nga subjekti, kryesisht n\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtje civile. Kolegji shprehet se i gjeti t\u00eb bazuara shkaqet e ankimit dhe konstatoi mang\u00ebsi serioze n\u00eb m\u00ebnyr\u00ebn sesi subjekti ka gjykuar e trajtuar t\u00eb drejtat e pal\u00ebve n\u00eb proces.<\/p>\n N\u00eb p\u00ebrfundim, shumica ka vler\u00ebsuar se gjyqtari Fu\u00e7ia ka njohuri, aft\u00ebsi dhe gjykim t\u00eb atill\u00eb q\u00eb p\u00ebrb\u00ebn mang\u00ebsi profesionale t\u00eb nevojshme p\u00ebr t\u2019u korrigjuar p\u00ebrmes programit nj\u00ebvje\u00e7ar t\u00eb trajnimit n\u00eb Shkoll\u00ebn e Magjistratur\u00ebs. Sipas shumic\u00ebs, mang\u00ebsit\u00eb e konstatuara duhet t\u00eb ishin vler\u00ebsuar nga Komisioni n\u00eb drejtim t\u00eb vler\u00ebsimit t\u00eb aft\u00ebsive profesionale, n\u00eb kushtet q\u00eb ka nj\u00eb s\u00ebr\u00eb aspektesh p\u00ebr t\u00eb cilat subjekti paraqet probleme t\u00eb p\u00ebrs\u00ebritura, p\u00ebrfshir\u00eb shkelje t\u00eb afateve t\u00eb njoftimit apo t\u00eb dispozitave t\u00eb ligjit q\u00eb kan\u00eb p\u00ebr synim t\u00eb sigurojn\u00eb barazin\u00eb e arm\u00ebve n\u00eb procesin gjyq\u00ebsor.<\/p>\n Shpjegimet e Fu\u00e7is\u00eb vler\u00ebsohen evazive dhe si pasqyrim i mang\u00ebsive t\u00eb tij n\u00eb drejtim t\u00eb njohjes dhe zbatimit t\u00eb parimeve themelore t\u00eb zhvillimit t\u00eb nj\u00eb procesi gjyq\u00ebsor, q\u00eb duhet t\u00eb ishin mbajtur n\u00eb konsiderat\u00eb nga KPK.<\/p>\n Sipas shumic\u00ebs, mang\u00ebsit\u00eb e konstatuara nuk e b\u00ebjn\u00eb subjektin t\u00eb pap\u00ebrshtatsh\u00ebm p\u00ebr vazhdimin e detyr\u00ebs, pasi jan\u00eb t\u00eb tilla q\u00eb mund t\u00eb plot\u00ebsohen n\u00ebp\u00ebrmjet programit t\u00eb, brenda nj\u00eb viti. P\u00ebr t\u00eb arritur n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb p\u00ebrfundim, \u00ebsht\u00eb mbajtur n\u00eb konsiderat\u00eb dhe fakti se nuk jan\u00eb gjetur probleme p\u00ebr pasurin\u00eb dhe figur\u00ebn. N\u00eb p\u00ebrfundim t\u00eb k\u00ebtij gjykimi, m\u00eb dat\u00eb 25 korrik t\u00eb vitit 2025, shumica vendosi ndryshimin e vendimit t\u00eb KPK, pezullimin nga detyra t\u00eb Fu\u00e7is\u00eb p\u00ebr nj\u00eb periudh\u00eb nj\u00ebvje\u00e7are, si dhe detyrimin e tij p\u00ebr t\u00eb ndjekur programin e trajnimit, sipas kurrikulave t\u00eb miratuara nga Shkolla e Magjistratur\u00ebs.<\/p>\n Mulaj n\u00eb pakic\u00eb vler\u00ebson se u provua se aktiviteti profesional i subjektit \u00ebsht\u00eb i shoq\u00ebruar me njohuri, aft\u00ebsi, gjykim, q\u00ebndrime, e nj\u00eb model pune shum\u00eb t\u00eb dob\u00ebt, duke mos respektuar minimalisht t\u00eb drejtat e pal\u00ebve n\u00eb proces, gj\u00eb q\u00eb e ka b\u00ebr\u00eb n\u00eb m\u00ebnyr\u00eb t\u00eb p\u00ebrs\u00ebritur. Po ashtu, Mulaj n\u00ebnvizon se Fu\u00e7ia nuk zbaton ligjin si duhet. Sipas saj, gjetjet krijojn\u00eb kushtet e klim\u00ebs s\u00eb pand\u00ebshkueshm\u00ebris\u00eb n\u00eb syt\u00eb e publikut dhe duhej t\u00eb largohejnga detyra. N\u00eb p\u00ebrfundim, Mulaj ka k\u00ebrkuar ndryshimin e vendimit t\u00eb KPK dhe shkarkimin e Fu\u00e7is\u00eb.<\/p>\n P\u00ebrfundimi procesit<\/strong><\/p>\n Pasi Kolegji administroi vler\u00ebsimin e Shkoll\u00ebs s\u00eb Magjistratur\u00ebs p\u00ebr Fu\u00e7in\u00eb, n\u00eb nivelin \u201cmir\u00eb\u201d, shumica vler\u00ebsoi se gjendeshin t\u00eb plot\u00ebsuara kushtet p\u00ebr dh\u00ebnien e nj\u00eb vendimi p\u00ebrfundimtar p\u00ebr \u00e7\u00ebshtjen. \u201cMe fjal\u00eb t\u00eb tjera, duke mbajtur n\u00eb konsiderat\u00eb q\u00eb subjekti i rivler\u00ebsimit e ka kaluar testimin e aft\u00ebsive profesionale n\u00eb p\u00ebrfundim t\u00eb nj\u00eb programi trajnues t\u00eb hartuar p\u00ebr t\u00eb nga Shkolla e Magjistratur\u00ebs, konkludohet q\u00eb ai ka arritur nivelin minimal kualifikues t\u00eb k\u00ebrkuar nga shkronja \u201cc\u201d e pik\u00ebs 1 t\u00eb nenit 59 t\u00eb ligjit nr. 84\/2016 si parakusht p\u00ebr konfirmimin n\u00eb detyr\u00eb\u201d, vler\u00ebson shumica dhe e konfirmoi at\u00eb n\u00eb detyr\u00eb m\u00eb 31 tetor t\u00eb vitit t\u00eb kaluar.<\/p>\n Mulaj dhe n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb rast ka dal\u00eb n\u00eb pakic\u00eb, duke arsyetuar se n\u00eb rastin kur subjekti pezullohet nga detyra e d\u00ebrgohet p\u00ebr trajnim n\u00eb Shkoll\u00ebn e Magjistratur\u00ebs, vendimarrja p\u00ebrfundimtare i takon Komisionit. Ajo v\u00ebren se, n\u00eb nenin \u00cb, pika 1 dhe 2 Aneksit t\u00eb Kushtetut\u00ebs parashikohet nd\u00ebr t\u00eb tjera se: \u201c\u2026Subjekti i rivler\u00ebsuar urdh\u00ebrohet t\u00eb ndjek\u00eb nj\u00eb program edukimi nj\u00ebvje\u00e7ar pran\u00eb Shkoll\u00ebs s\u00eb Magjistratur\u00ebs, i hartuar p\u00ebr t\u00eb plot\u00ebsuar mang\u00ebsit\u00eb. N\u00eb fund t\u00eb programit, ai testohet p\u00ebr aft\u00ebsit\u00eb e tij. Ky testim mbik\u00ebqyret nga Operacioni Nd\u00ebrkomb\u00ebtar i Monitorimit. Subjekti i rivler\u00ebsimit q\u00eb nuk e kalon testimin, shkarkohet nga Komisioni\u201d.<\/p>\n N\u00eb vijim, Mulaj argumenton se Kushtetua ka p\u00ebrcaktuar se pas shp\u00ebrb\u00ebrjes s\u00eb Komisionit, \u00e7\u00ebshtjet e pap\u00ebrfunduara t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit shqyrtohen nga K\u00ebshilli i Lart\u00eb Gjyq\u00ebsor ose K\u00ebshilli i Lart\u00eb i Prokuroris\u00eb, sipas ligjit, nd\u00ebrsa ankimet ndaj vendimeve t\u00eb Komisionit ende t\u00eb pap\u00ebrfunduara, do t\u00eb shqyrtohen nga Gjykata Kushtetuese.<\/p>\n Sipas Mulajt, dispozitat kushtetuese p\u00ebrcaktojn\u00eb qart\u00eb kalimin e kompetencave t\u00eb Komisionit t\u00eb Pavarur t\u00eb Kualifikimit te K\u00ebshilli i Lart\u00eb Gjyq\u00ebsor dhe p\u00ebr k\u00ebt\u00eb arsye, procedura e rivler\u00ebsimit p\u00ebr gjyqtarin Laurent Fu\u00e7ia duhet t\u00eb ishte trajtuar nga ky K\u00ebshill.<\/p>\n Arsyetimin e saj, pakica e mb\u00ebshtet dhe n\u00eb faktin se, sipas legjislacionit t\u00eb vetingut t\u00eb magjistrat\u00ebve, Kolegji nuk mund t\u00eb vendos\u00eb konfirmimin n\u00eb detyr\u00eb t\u00eb subjektit, pa vendosur m\u00eb par\u00eb ndryshimin e vendimit t\u00eb Komisionit.<\/p>\n \u201cKonfirmimi apo shkarkimi nga detyra i subjekteve t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit, n\u00eb p\u00ebrfundim t\u00eb hetimit administrativ, vendoset vet\u00ebm nga Komisioni i Pavarur i Kualifikimit, bazuar n\u00eb nenin 58, t\u00eb ligjit nr. 84\/2016, q\u00eb n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb rast e ka K\u00ebshilli i Lart\u00eb i Gjyq\u00ebsor\u201d, n\u00ebnvizon Mulaj.<\/p>\n Ajo shton dhe faktin se KPA vihet n\u00eb l\u00ebvizje vet\u00ebm bazuar n\u00eb ankim t\u00eb subjekteve t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsimit apo Komisionerit Publik. \u201cVler\u00ebsimi i dh\u00ebn\u00eb nga Shkolla e Magjistratur\u00ebs p\u00ebrmes shkres\u00ebs nr. {***} prot., dat\u00eb 24.07.2025, nuk mund t\u00eb v\u00ebr\u00eb n\u00eb l\u00ebvizje Kolegjin e t\u00eb trajtohet si ankim\u201d, vler\u00ebson Mulaj dhe \u00e7mon se shumica ka shkelur r\u00ebnd\u00eb parimet kushtetuese, duke gjykuar nj\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtje pa ankim dhe duke marr\u00eb kompetencat e nj\u00eb institucioni tjet\u00ebr kushtetues.<\/p>\n Ajo p\u00ebrfundon, se KPA duhej q\u00eb, p\u00ebr trajtimin e k\u00ebsaj \u00e7\u00ebshtjeje, t\u00eb kishte vendosur d\u00ebrgimin e akteve institucionit kompetent, K\u00ebshillit t\u00eb Lart\u00eb Gjyq\u00ebsor.<\/p>\n \u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Kolegji i Posa\u00e7\u00ebm i Apelimit, KPA u nda n\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtjen e vetingut t\u00eb gjyqtarit t\u00eb Vlor\u00ebs, Laurent Fu\u00e7ia, si n\u00eb vler\u00ebsimin e shkaqeve t\u00eb ankimit ndaj vendimmarrjes s\u00eb Komisionit t\u00eb Pavarur t\u00eb Kualifikimit p\u00ebr konfirmimin e tij, ashtu dhe lidhur me m\u00ebnyr\u00ebn e p\u00ebrfundimit t\u00eb procesit. \u00a0Shumica e trupit gjykues t\u00eb KPA e p\u00ebrb\u00ebr\u00eb nga […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":637,"featured_media":79833,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[13,114,115],"tags":[427,187,789,243,908,112,101,1942,153,430,674,671,133,903],"fifu_image_url":"https:\/\/www.reporter.al\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/Laurent-Fucia-scaled.jpg","fifu_image_alt":"Gjyqtari Laurent Fu\u00e7ia n\u00eb KPA.","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/79832"}],"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=79832"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/79832\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":79834,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/79832\/revisions\/79834"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/79833"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=79832"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=79832"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reporter.al\/vetingu\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=79832"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}