HOT NEWS/ Smuggled stones hidden in cocaine containers are discovered!

 Kliko këtu për të tjera
Voxpress:

Who paid the expenses in the luxury resort in Vlora? The court "helps" the KPK

2022-09-29 18:40:10Aktualitet SHKRUAR NGA REDAKSIA VOX
Who paid the expenses in the luxury resort in Vlora? The court "helps"
KPK Chairman, Pamela Qirko during an activity

The Administrative Court of Tirana has given the right to the Independent Qualification Commission to keep secret the name of the private sponsor who paid the accommodation expenses of the commissioners and part of the staff in the premises of the luxury resort "Marina Bay" in Vlora, during an activity developed in September last year.

Through the decision announced on September 13, judge Nafije Hasko considers the key institution of the vetting of judges and prosecutors as contractual parties with rights to conclude confidential financial agreements with private entities, while surprisingly reasoning that the confidentiality clause in the sponsorship agreement serves "protection of public interest".

After rejecting BIRN's requests and the implementation of a decision of the Commissioner for the Right to Information, the KPK invested in opening a court process to overturn the order forcing it to make transparent the private company that had sponsored the activity in Vlora.

Through the request-lawsuit submitted to the Administrative Court, the KPK requested the annulment of the decision of the Commissioner for the Right to Information and claimed that the disclosure of the private sponsor would harm national security, the vetting process of magistrates, international relations as well as the image of the KPK itself. of.

In the request-lawsuit, no arguments were presented as to why making public the entity that covered the expenses of the entire activity would bring consequences, but the Commission listed a series of justifications related to the special status enjoyed by the commissioners and the content of their discussions in the meeting - for which information was not requested.

However, their claims were found to be fair by Judge Nafije Hasko, who decided to annul as illegal the Commissioner's decision ordering the disclosure of the name of the private sponsor.

The Independent Qualifications Commission was established in 2017 as the key institution of judicial reform to clean up corrupt judges and prosecutors and restore public confidence in the justice system. Many magistrates have been accountable to the KPK and have been penalized with dismissal for gifts or sponsorships received from third parties, which have been assessed in light of a possible or apparent conflict of interest as well as a breach of public trust in justice. KPK members themselves refuse to submit to the same standard for a year.

Judge Hasko justifies keeping the donor secret with a clause in the contract that provides for the indefinite observance of confidentiality.

"It was the will and intention of the contracting parties that this information or data should not be made public even after the end of the activity," it says in the country, adding that the agreement has the force of law for the parties.

Judge Hasko also notes that non-respect of confidentiality by the contracting parties would bring obligations to compensate for the damage caused. The judge also makes a narrow interpretation of the public interest, which she relates only to the activity of the KPK.

"The court assesses that the establishment of the confidentiality clause in the contract was necessary, as it serves the protection of the public interest, because the object of this activity were important issues related to the activity of this institution in the future, strategy and long-term plans and short-term, which can never be made public, as they would seriously harm the interests of justice", judges Nafije Hasko, without taking into account that BIRN's request and the Commissioner's order were only related to the name of the donor and not to the strategies and plans of KPK.

In the decision, the judge also narrows the range of information for which transparency should be made only to the data on the vetting process and not to the obligation of the KPK to also be transparent on its financial and administrative activity.

"...the data claimed by the applicant, which are not related in this case to the process of the transitional re-evaluation of the re-evaluation subjects, but enjoy protection from the confidentiality clause established in article 7 and 12 of the Sponsorship Agreement," Hasko reasons.

In the following, Hasko estimates that making the sponsor public would not serve to reduce the level of corruption, public safety, increase public trust in the justice system or the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms.

She also qualifies the position of the KPK to keep the donor secret in accordance with the principle of proportionality.

"The limitation of the dissemination of information is proportional, taking into consideration the financial consequences for the plaintiff party, the KPK, in the event of contractual damages," judges Nafije Hasko in the decision to annul the decision of the Commissioner for the Right to Information./BIRN


Në përputhje me standarded JTI

Video

SHIKO KANALIN NE YOUTUBE
×