NOT JUST GAZA/ Albania ready to send troops to Minnesota, says acrobat leader

 Kliko këtu për të tjera
Voxpress:

Who are the three Constitutional Court judges who voted in favor of Balluk's suspension: The government functions even when one of its members is suspended?

2025-12-12 20:16:58Aktualitet SHKRUAR NGA REDAKSIA VOX
Balluku and Rama - Photo illustration

The three judges of the Constitutional Court, Marsida Xhaferllari, Ilir Toska and Asim Vokshi, have issued a minority opinion against the decision to suspend the effects of court decisions related to the suspension from office of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Infrastructure and Energy, Belinda Balluku.

In their reasoning, the judges emphasize that there are no serious and irreparable consequences that would justify the Constitutional Court's intervention.

The three judges have requested that the GJKKO decisions on Balluk not be affected, emphasizing that the Government functions even when one of its members is suspended from office.

The judges also reason that the case against her is still under judicial review, after it was appealed by Balluku.

1. In examining the case concerning the request of the Prime Minister of Albania, with the aim of resolving the dispute of competences between the Prime Minister of the Council of Ministers and the First Instance Court of Appeals; the interpretation of point 3 of Article 103 of the Constitution; and the annulment of two judicial decisions for the imposition and extension of the prohibitory measure of suspension of the exercise of the duties of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister of Infrastructure and Energy, we, judges Marsida Xhaferllari, Ilir Toska and Asim Vokshi, are against the majority decision to suspend the judicial decisions, for the following reasons.

2. The applicant has submitted that the prohibitory measure of suspension of the exercise of the duty affects high state and social interests, but also those of the individuals themselves. According to the applicant, the measure should be suspended in order to protect the system of governance and to preserve the full functionality of the Council of Ministers, which exercises every state function that has not been given to other state or local government bodies.

According to him, the measure of suspension from duty brings irreparable consequences for the country's governance, creating an institutional vacuum, dysfunction of the Council of Ministers, and the inability to exercise the responsibilities and powers that the Constitution and legislation in force recognize exclusively for the executive branch.

The petitioner also argued that it is in the state interest that the powers of the Prime Minister, the President and the Assembly continue to produce legal effects. Leaving the court decision in force would deepen the conflict of powers between the judiciary, on the one hand, and the legislative and executive powers, on the other, further violating the principle of separation and balance of powers.

The suspension of a minister or deputy prime minister simultaneously suspends the activity of the executive branch in the area of ??responsibility of the suspended minister or deputy prime minister. It creates an institutional vacuum in the exercise of executive power, but also of the legislative branch itself, as it prevents the proposal of draft acts of national importance for integration into the European Union.

Likewise, the petitioner argued, the decision also affects the individual interests of citizens, who are directly affected by the suspension of the functioning of the Ministry of Infrastructure and Energy, as well as the Council of Ministers itself.

3. According to Article 45, paragraph 1, of the organic law of the Court, the latter, on its own initiative or at the request of the parties, when it assesses that the application of the law or act may bring consequences that affect state, social or individual interests, as the case may be, by decision of the Meeting of Judges or in a plenary session, orders its suspension.

This legal regulation has been elaborated by the Court, which in its jurisprudence has affirmed that in conditions where suspension is an extraordinary measure, its imposition is related to the assessment of the consequences or effects of the implementation of the act.

These consequences must not only be real, i.e. in the process of being realized, but also serious, to the extent that they go beyond the normal measure of restriction, in particular in terms of urgency (see decision no. 1, dated 25.01.2024 of the Constitutional Court).

4. In view of the above, despite the majority's assessment of the suspension of judicial decisions, we, the judges in the minority, consider that the conditions of Article 45 of the Court's organic law are not met, since the presence of serious irreparable consequences is not verified, that is, to the extent that it goes beyond the normal measure of restriction, in particular in terms of urgency.

In this sense, the applicant's argument that the Council of Ministers is inoperative due to the suspension of one of its members is not convincing as it is a collegial body, which takes decisions collegially, by majority vote. Likewise, we are of the opinion that the applicant does not show that there are no other less harmful means available to address the situation created.

5. At this point, we note that in no previous case has the Court decided to suspend the execution of judicial decisions, not only when they are still being appealed by the parties according to the usual means of appeal at their disposal, but also when they have become final for the purpose of constitutional review, that is, when they have exhausted the regular avenue of judicial appeal to the higher courts.

However, the specific case is even more delicate, as it concerns judicial decisions that are still under review by the ordinary court system, currently in the special court of second instance. In this regard, judicial decisions must follow the legal procedural path of appeal in the ordinary courts and the intervention of the Court with a decision to suspend their effects in itself harms the good administration of justice.

In other words, the decision of the majority prima facie interferes with the activity of the courts, creating a situation that is inconsistent with Article 145, paragraph 3, of the Constitution, which protects at the constitutional level the integrity of the activity of the courts from any interference while the case is under judicial jurisdiction, with consequent sanctioning according to the law. The Court has emphasized that under the spirit of the provisions of the Constitution on the independence of the judiciary and the separation of powers, the elements of independence, which essentially affect the very function of delivering justice, should not be violated (see decision no. 81, dated 21.11.2024 of the Constitutional Court).

Independence implies not only a certain attitude towards the exercise of the judicial function, but a position or relationship in relation to others that is based on the existence of objective conditions and guarantees (see decision 14, dated 22.05.2006 of the Constitutional Court).

From this perspective, we, the minority judges, consider that in the context of the facts presented by the applicant, the suspension of first-instance court decisions, which are awaiting review on appeal, causes such consequences that not only do not resolve any constitutional dispute, but also damage the fair constitutional balance that must exist between the interests that are present in the specific case (on the one hand, good administration and independence of the judiciary, and on the other hand, the regular exercise of powers by the constitutional bodies, the Prime Minister, the Council of Ministers, the Special Prosecutor's Office and the Special Court).

Consequently, we are of the opinion that the Meeting of Judges should have decided to reject the request for suspension of the execution of the contested judicial decisions. In addition to the above, we, judges Marsida Xhaferllari and Asim Vokshi, consider that the judicial decisions should not have been suspended also due to the fact that we are against the transfer of the case for consideration in a plenary session, with the argument that the preliminary admissibility criteria are not met.

The judges who voted against

Asim Vokshi

Ilir Toska

Marsida Xhaferllari


Në përputhje me standarded JTI

Video

SHIKO KANALIN NE YOUTUBE
×