" I don't usually talk to the press, but I understand that this issue is important and delicate not only for us, but also for Italy, and maybe it's right to clarify things a bit ", said Holta Zaçaj , President of the Constitutional Court during a telephone conversation with the Italian newspaper, "Corriere della Sera" .
Zaçaj went live on TV on Wednesday afternoon to explain why the Italy-Albania migrant deal cannot (yet) be ratified.
President, let's clarify the question in the meantime: does the Constitutional Court say "no" to the Rome-Tirana agreement?
No. The process leading to the ratification of the agreement has been suspended, since over a quarter of the Albanian deputies have asked us to check the constitutionality or otherwise of the protocol signed between the two countries.
We have assessed that the complaint meets the admissibility criteria and according to our regulation, this automatically results in the termination of the parliamentary procedures for ratification. But I want to clarify: we have not gone into the interior of the signed protocol.
What are the thirty deputies contesting?
Basically two aspects. First: alleged non-compliance with the negotiation and signature procedure.
According to them, this type of agreement requires the authorization of the president, as it affects territorial issues. In short, for them it cannot be an agreement between governments, but between states.
According to them, the protocol may lead to the violation of human rights.
Why is the automatic suspension of the parliamentary process encouraged?
Because after ratification, the Court - according to our rules - can no longer check the legitimacy or otherwise of the agreement. And the appeal raises doubts about the constitutionality of the protocol.
Will the Court enter the session of January 18 based on the Rama-Meloni agreement?
We are asked for such a thing, we must examine in detail the protocol for those two points raised by a quarter of the Assembly of Albania. But I repeat: we have not really entered into this matter.
There are those who fear opposition moves to force you to postpone the decision.
The two parties will have to send the documentation by January 4, 2024. And from the day of the appeal (December 6, 2023) we have a maximum of three months to make a decision.
In this case, it means that until March 6, 2024, the Court must say whether the agreement is legitimate or not. / How