In a marathon session lasting more than 10 hours, the 8 judges of the Constitutional Court failed to reach a decision on Edi Rama's appeal against Belinda Balluku's suspension from office.
The votes were divided four in favor and four against, reports Top Channel journalist Anila Hoxha, making it impossible to reach a 5-3 decision, and as a result, the GJKKO decision to suspend Balluk from duty remains in force.
"According to one position, the Court in its jurisprudence regarding Article 73, paragraph 3 of the Constitution has stated that the immunity of deputies is not their personal privilege but its main purpose is to protect the Assembly itself and in particular its proper functioning.
In this sense, obtaining authorization from the Assembly to implement measures that limit the freedom of the deputy in advance aims to protect the activity of the Assembly itself.
This means that even Article 103, point 3 of the Constitution, by providing that members of the Council of Ministers enjoy the immunity of a deputy, aims to protect and function the executive body, of which the minister is also a part.
Referring to the measure of suspension of the exercise of public office or service, it is assessed that, due to its scale and intensity, it affects the constitutional political function of the minister.
"Therefore, in balancing the constitutional principle of the effectiveness of criminal prosecution and that of the functioning of the executive branch in terms of the principle of separation and balance of powers under Article 7 of the Constitution, prior authorization from the Assembly is required for this measure as well," the Court states, in arguing for the 4 judges against suspension from office.
“According to another position, similar to the standard of interpretation accepted by the Court in the case of the immunity regime, which should be narrow/limited, based on the will of the constitution-maker in the 2012 reform to reduce immunity, the Constitution in its current form has provided for the prior authorization of the Assembly for criminal procedural measures expressly provided for in Article 73, paragraph 2 thereof.
"This provision does not provide for the prohibitive measure of suspension from office under Article 242 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, although the implementation of this measure prevents the exercise of the minister's functions and consequently interferes with the activity of the Council of Ministers," the Court says regarding the argument of the 4 judges in favor of suspension from office. /tch
edition
t7 live
