OPEN LETTER/ Come to the dialogue and listen to me speak, otherwise I will cut off your scholarships, you will rot in prison. Please!

 Kliko këtu për të tjera
Voxpress:

Sokol Sadushi clashes with the Constitutional Court over Sonila Bejtje's mandate

2025-05-28 12:13:01Aktualitet SHKRUAR NGA REDAKSIA VOX
Sokol Sadushi clashes with the Constitutional Court over Sonila Bejtje's
Sokol Sadushi and Sonila Bejtja

On April 15, the Constitutional Court addressed a letter to the Supreme Court informing it that the issue of the mandate of the member of the Constitutional Court, Sonila Bejtja, would be reviewed in a plenary session, on the basis of documents and without the presence of the parties. The Supreme Court and the Parliament were invited to the process as interested parties. Together with the Presidency, these two institutions represent the three bodies for the appointment of members of the Constitutional Court.

The issue of the term of office of the members of the Constitutional Court became a point of intense debate at the end of last year. According to the Constitution, “the composition of the Court is renewed every three years by one third, according to the procedure established by law.” The law itself specifically defines the order of renewal of judges until 2022, making the scheme functional, and starting its full implementation in 2025 with the change of three members, one for each appointing body, and to continue in 2028 and 2031.

In September last year, the sudden resignation of member Elsa Toska was followed by the decision of the speaker of parliament, Elisa Spiropali, to declare a vacancy for a term ending, not in 2025, but in 2028. This act would mark the first flaw in the scheme for renewing the three-member court for this year.

In December, it was the President of the Court, Holta Zaçaj, who refused to declare the end of her mandate, in March 2025, as legally required. She was forced to take a step back when the Supreme Court, the appointing body in her case, initiated procedures to replace her. A clash from which the Supreme Court emerged victorious, while defending the principle of constitutional renewal.

A principle which was later considered to prevail even by the decision of the Constitutional Court itself, in the case of declaring the end of Ms. Zaçaj's mandate.

But while it seemed that this decision taken at the end of last year, ended the dilemmas about how to replace the three members in 2025, President Zaçaj did not take any action regarding the case of Ms. Bejtja's mandate. Her chosen silence became the reason for a long letter that President Bajram Begaj sent to the Constitutional Court at the end of January. The letter, which was not without critical notes, pointed out, among other things, that the Court "should have completed the procedure for declaring the mandate of Judge Bejtja and notified the President of the Republic of the vacancy before 25.1.2025. Not only has this not happened, but there has also been no public announcement by the Constitutional Court in this regard."

The president's letter had as its subject "Declaration of the end of the mandate of the member of the Constitutional Court". But the Court itself decided not to treat it according to its subject. When more than 3 weeks had passed since its sending, the chairman of Holta Zaçaj declared that "the issue brought by the president has been brought as a constitutional dispute and as such will be treated as a judicial matter, so it is not like the case of declaring the end of the mandate".  

Already invited as an interested party, the Supreme Court, on May 12, has responded in strong tones, expressing its disagreement with the way the Constitutional Court is handling the case. In the letter signed by President Sokol Sadushi, it is stated that the Supreme Court finds it “impossible to avoid surprise” over the case, underlining that “for the first time in the 33-year history since the establishment of the Constitutional Court in Albania, such a judgment of a declaratory nature is subject to an adversarial trial process.”

The Supreme Court insists that the Constitutional Court should not make a judgment on this case, but should simply declare the end of Sonila Bejte's mandate. "The solution offered by the Constitutional Court in this specific case is not relevant to the resolution of the constitutional crisis, because it has served to unnecessarily delay, beyond the constitutional provisions, the process of filling vacancies and renewing its composition," the Supreme Court notes.

According to her, the Constitutional Court should not deviate from the purpose of President Begaj's request, which was the declaration by the Constitutional Court of the end of Sonila Bejte's mandate.

The Supreme Court expresses critical notes towards its involvement as a party: "It is not the right solution. The summoning of the Supreme Court to this process, having no point of intersection with the President's competence, seems at least like a respondent to the special processes of constitutional trial, and at most, as an intention to channel the process into a non-existent conflict of competence."

The court continues with the same direct criticism, underlining that "treating this issue as a dispute of competence between the powers is unjustified. By passing the issue for consideration in a plenary session, on the basis of documents, as a dispute of competence and with opposing parties, this judicial process is intended to be procedurally deformed."

In conclusion, Sokol Sadushi, President of the Supreme Court, says that his institution expresses reservations about this approach of the Constitutional Court, and requests the declaration of a vacancy for the mandate of Judge Sonila Bejtja, "with the aim of avoiding any crisis that delegitimizes the authority of the Constitutional Court and prevents the appointing bodies from exercising their constitutional power. It is the constitutional responsibility of the full body of the Constitutional Court to express itself "without delay, with a final and binding decision", on the request submitted by the President of the Republic" - the Supreme Court's letter concludes.

Report TV has also officially asked the Albanian Parliament for a copy of its position on this issue, but the Parliament did not make its submission available, since the matter is still under trial. “As an interested party, the Parliament has filed its objections with the Constitutional Court. We clarify that the matter is still under review by the Constitutional Court and for this reason we cannot make documents from this file available to you,” the Parliament responded after a request for information./shqiptarja.com

Sokol Sadushi clashes with the Constitutional Court over Sonila Bejtje's


Në përputhje me standarded JTI

Video

SHIKO KANALIN NE YOUTUBE
×