DREAM / The Prime Minister resigns and wakes up under the Parisian bridge!

 Kliko këtu për të tjera
Voxpress:

"The 2003 decision should be reviewed", Ilir Beqaj, letter to the Supreme Court: The limits of theft should be updated according to economic reality

2026-05-25 13:07:31Aktualitet SHKRUAR NGA REDAKSIA VOX
"The 2003 decision should be reviewed", Ilir Beqaj, letter to the
Ilir Beqaj

Ilir Beqaj has addressed the Supreme Court with a letter requesting the review of a unifying decision from 2003, expressing the need to update the guiding criteria for the value that constitutes a serious consequence in cases of theft.

According to Beqaj, the limits of 1 million lek for individuals and 2 million lek for legal entities no longer match the economic reality of 2026, as salaries, incomes, and inflation have increased several times over the last 23 years.

"An amount that in 2003 represented a certain level of economic importance does not necessarily represent the same importance today," he argues in the letter.

The former minister says that citizens are facing more serious criminal consequences based on old economic criteria, so he is requesting a new unifying decision from the Joint Panels of the Supreme Court.

"The problem lies in the fact that its criteria continue to be applied in 2026 with the same nominal figures, although the economic basis on which they were built has changed fundamentally," Beqaj writes.

In the letter, he also proposes the creation of an automatic mechanism for periodically updating these limits, linking them to economic indicators such as the minimum wage, average wage, or inflation.

"Such a mechanism would guarantee more predictability for citizens, more uniformity in judicial practice, and less risk of mechanical application of nominal limits," the letter states.

According to Beqaj, a new decision by the Supreme Court would bring about a more proportional implementation of criminal law and would adapt judicial practice to the economic reality of 2026.

Full letter:

Honorable members of the Supreme Court,

Decision No. 5 of the Joint Panels of the Supreme Court, dated 11.11.2003, has established an important rule of law regarding the determination of aggravating circumstances under the second paragraph of Article 134 of the Criminal Code.

In this decision, the United Colleges reasoned:

"In relation to the current economic development and the economic situation of the individual and society, the United Colleges determine as guiding criteria for the value as a serious consequence in cases of theft provided for in Article 134/2 of the Criminal Code:

1. Amounts or items worth over 1,000,000 lek, when they are stolen from individuals.

2. Amounts or items worth over 2,000,000 lekë, when the theft is carried out to the detriment of legal entities and state property.”

This decision has had and continues to have great importance in the practice of criminal justice. Criminal prosecution bodies and courts, in many cases, apply these criteria as ready-made, clear and unchangeable nominal limits, often without an in-depth and individualized reasoning on the concrete circumstances of the case.

Moreover, in practice these criteria are not limited to the criminal offense of theft, provided for by Article 134 of the Criminal Code. They have also been extended to other criminal offenses of a property nature, including the offenses provided for by Article 143 et seq. of the Criminal Code, with the reasoning that even in these cases the economic consequence is similar to that of theft.

In this way, the guiding criteria established by Decision No. 5, dated 11.11.2003, have acquired a practical importance that goes beyond Article 134/2. They affect the legal qualification and the aggravation of criminal liability in a considerable number of provisions of the Criminal Code, at least in ten different articles.

23 years have passed since these two nominal values ​​were determined.

When the United Colleges set these criteria, they were expressly based “in relation to current economic development” and “the economic situation of the individual and society.” Thus, the very reasoning of the decision linked the determination of these values ​​to the economic reality of the time.

But the economic reality of 2026 is radically different from that of 2003.

Verified data shows that during this period:

* the minimum wage nationwide has increased fivefold;

* the average salary nationwide has increased fivefold;

* average income per capita has increased fivefold;

* the accumulated inflation in 23 years is over 200%.

This data shows that the nominal values ​​of 1,000,000 lek and 2,000,000 lek, determined in 2003, no longer have the same economic, social and criminal weight in 2026.

An amount that represented a certain level of economic significance in 2003 does not necessarily represent the same significance today. Purchasing power, wage levels, per capita income and general prices have changed significantly. Consequently, the practical meaning of “serious consequence” must also be assessed in light of these changes.

In this context, the question arises: is it fair and proportionate for citizens to be prosecuted and face more serious criminal consequences based on guiding criteria that no longer reflect the current level of economic development of the country?

Of course, a legal rule does not automatically become obsolete or unenforceable simply because of the passage of time. Even constitutional jurisprudence has recognized that the time a rule has been in force, in itself, is not sufficient to render it unenforceable.

But the specific case has an essential feature.

The rule established by Decision No. 5, dated 11.11.2003, is not an abstract rule and disconnected from economic reality. On the contrary, it is built precisely on the assessment of economic development and the economic situation of the individual and society at that time.

Therefore, the problem does not lie in the fact that the decision is from 2003. The problem lies in the fact that its criteria continue to apply in 2026 with the same nominal figures, although the economic basis on which they were built has changed fundamentally.

What was "current" in 2003 cannot be considered, without reassessment, as equally current in 2026.

For this reason, it is necessary to update the guiding criteria for the value that constitutes a serious consequence in cases under Article 134/2 of the Criminal Code. This update would serve the principle of proportionality, legal certainty, equality in the application of the law and the individualization of criminal responsibility.

The need for updating becomes even more apparent after the inclusion in the Criminal Code of Article 143/a/8, "Fraud to the detriment of the financial interests of the European Union", in force since February 2026. In this provision, the legislator has expressly defined the monetary value of 50,000 euros as an element of the aggravating circumstance.

This normative development shows that the monetary value of the damage is not a secondary or formal element, but an essential criterion for the differentiation of criminal liability. Consequently, it is not reasonable for a wide group of criminal offenses of a property nature to continue to apply, without updating, nominal limits determined on the economic reality of 2003.

Without suggesting that the value set out in Article 143/a/8 be mechanically transferred to other provisions, the existence of this new legal standard indicates the need for a more updated, more coherent and more proportionate approach to assessing the serious consequence in criminal offences of a pecuniary nature.

In this sense, a new unifying decision of the Joint Panels of the Supreme Court would be the most appropriate means to establish an updated rule of law.

This new rule should not be limited to setting two new nominal values. It would be useful if it also included a self-regulation mechanism, so that the guiding criteria do not remain unchanged for decades.

Such a mechanism could be linked to objective and official economic indicators, such as the minimum wage, the national average wage, the average income per capita and/or the consumer price index. The update could be made every two or three years, with effect from 1 January of the relevant year.

In this way, the guiding criteria for "serious consequence" would continue to maintain the connection with the reason for which they were initially established by the United Colleges: the relationship with economic development and the economic situation of the individual and society.

Such a mechanism would guarantee more predictability for citizens, more uniformity in judicial practice, and less risk of mechanical application of nominal limits that are out of the economic context in which they are defined.

Honorable members of the Supreme Court,

If the above is deemed reasonable, the Supreme Court has the procedural means to set in motion the Joint Panels, with the aim of reviewing and updating the guiding criteria established by Decision No. 5, dated 11.11.2003.

A new unifying decision would strengthen legal certainty, ensure more proportionate application of criminal law, and adapt judicial practice to the economic reality of 2026.

Essentially, the request is not to change the principle established in 2003. On the contrary, it is to preserve that principle in its true sense: that the value of the serious consequence be determined in relation to the current economic development and the economic situation of the individual and society.

Precisely for this reason, the 2003 guiding criteria need to be updated in 2026.

With consideration,

Ilir Beqaj


Në përputhje me standarded JTI

Video

SHIKO KANALIN NE YOUTUBE
×