By requesting investigations at the prosecutor's office, for 5 years a woman tried to unmask the state institutions, with the hope that through her case she would reveal a great truth by revealing how civil servants are treated when it comes to professional evaluation. Sure, that the commission had violated her right by giving her the grade "sufficient" only because she had complained on the Co-Government portal, Esmeralda Gjoza requested investigations for misuse of duties and falsification of documents against the commission and when she lost at the prosecutor's office, she went to court. During the monitoring carried out by the FOL Center and where it is observed that the citizen is facing a decision not to initiate investigations by the Tirana prosecutor's office, she engages the court, which unanimously gives her the right at both levels. Both degrees order the prosecution to investigate,
The woman who did not surrender even before the argument: Wait for the civil court!
The plaintiff was an employee of the Defense Security Intelligence Agency (AISM) at the Ministry of Defense from 2004 to 2018, who tells the inquiry team that she received "very good" reviews during her career and that performance took a different turn then. when she wanted to show that some things did not go to AISM. After 14 years in this position, where she sometimes held the position of jurist and sometimes as the person in charge of the analysis, the woman denounced to the prosecutor's office the mechanism of how she was evaluated, which was then used to remove her from office. Further, according to the 44-year-old, the file was alienated by adding false documents.
How did the battle begin?
Four months before he lost his job, in October 2017, Gjoza turned to the former Minister of Defense, Olta Xhaçka, with a denunciation to AISM. The plaintiff insisted that some employees had misused their duties and, as is understood, in October 2017 the minister of that time immediately ordered the establishment of an investigative commission consisting of citizens A. Toska, P. Tiko and V. Bllaca, who, among others, "investigated" the claim that work performance was not properly assessed throughout 2015.
The file admits that "during this process, the commission and the complainant became aware of the fact that the form document of the employee's work evaluation for the year 2015 had disappeared from the personal file". In its place there was another assessment form. Precisely for this form, the employee of the AISM agency then insisted to the prosecutor that it was forged "since she had the original annual evaluation document personally and that it had no resemblance to the letter that was included in the personal file". In this file, the investigative commission failed to find even the complaint of the 44-year-old woman, who objected to the professional and annual evaluation. This document, i.e. the complaint, does not even physically exist in the secretariat of the AISM institution, despite the fact that it was recorded with number 4898, dated 22. 12. 2015, according to the original copy possessed by the whistleblower" the ex-employee's complaint is mentioned in the decision. The claims of two other employees, identified as Astrit Hysi and Vullnet Doka, were added to her complaints about the disappearance of complaints about professional evaluation. "We were professionally evaluated at that time by the AV" - the two civil servants are mentioned - even though the latter had no hierarchical competence as it is not our direct superior, but simply the responsible sector."
As an employee of AISM for a period of 14 years, for 13 consecutive years and the first 6 months of 2017, I have been evaluated very well for my work performance. While for the second 6 months of this year, where A. Veshi and A. Paskali were denounced for the performance of this task, I was deliberately evaluated sufficiently' - the citizen complains to the prosecution body in Tirana. For both evaluators, the citizen shows that they were not the right officials who should have carried out the evaluation and that they maliciously damaged their careers, unlike the maximum mark scored by others who, as holders, had considered them with the appropriate expertise in the field of intelligence. But for the prosecution, regardless of the administered documentation, the concrete case is a juridical-civil conflict, which must be conducted before the civil court. "In case it was a criminal fact - it is further stated in the justification of the accusation - it should have been ascertained by the civil court that should make a report. It is the duty of the court, in case it finds a criminal offense, especially a crime such as abuse of duty or forgery, to file a report' - the prosecution declares. For these reasons, the prosecution does not start the case. But in the meantime, a civil judge had declared the termination of the employment contract between AISM and the whistleblower as invalid, a decision that was also appealed. At this point, the prosecution explains its actions by not administering the citizen's claims. "In this particular case, the judicial system should be left to resolve the conflict. Any intervention in the judicial process at the time of examination constitutes a violation of independence and intervention in the system" - explains the prosecution.
Gjykata i thotë ‘jo’ prokurorisë
Gjozi sipas monitorimit të Qendrës FOL vijoi betejën duke kundërshtuar mbylljen e hetimeve. Dritën e parë jeshile ia jep dhoma penale e Tiranës që shfuqizoi vendimmarrjen e prokurorisë , me të cilën replikon duke ngritur dilemat se përse nuk ishte shqyrtuar në aspektin hetimor edhe denoncimi i dytë i gruas, mbi falsifikimin e dokumentave. Por së pari replika lidhet me arsyetimin se i takonte gjykatës civile të kryente kallzim. “Vendimi që ka marrë formë të prerë është i detyrueshëm nga palët, për gjykatën dhe të gjitha institucionet e tjera kujton gjykata, e cila i tërheq vëmendjen prokurorisë se ky detyrim është edhe ndaj prokurorisë. Gjykata i lë disa detyra prokurorisë mes tyre administrimin e dosjes së gruas e gjendur pranë Agjensisë së Inteligjencës dhe Sigurisë. Të administrohen urdhërat, pozicionet e punës që denoncuesja ka patur, të identifikohen se kush kanë qenë eprorët e saj që kanë detyrë të vlerësojnë performancën e Esmeralda Gjozës, të administrohen pretendimet e saj pranë komisionit hetimor si dhe praktika e ndjekur prej tyre për të dalë në konkluzione”– jep verdiktin gjykata në çështjen e monitoruar nga Qendra FOL. Akoma më shumë e rëndon pozitën e prokurorisë, gjykata e apelit e cila krahason dy shkresa të firmosura mbi vlerësimin profesional të ish punonjëses dhe ku gjen të bazuar qëndrimin e saj se ka ndryshim në nënshkrimin e njërit prej titullarëve të AISM, i cili në vitin 2015 nuk ka qenë ushtaraku N.SH, me gradën kolonel. Për gjykatën e apelit kjo e dhënë, pra detaji i prezumuar se shkresa është e falsifikuar, ishte një gjurmë domethënëse që prokuroria të mos mbante duart lidhur. Rezulton se për vitin e kaluar sipas të dhënave të Departamentit të Administratës Publike, për performancë të dobët bazuar në vlerësimin profesional janë larguar nga detyra katër punonjës. I kontaktuar nga Qendra FOL, njëri prej tyre numëroi në kushtet e anonimitetit abuzimet që kryhen për vlerësimin profesional. ‘E para, vlerësimet që kryhen janë dy herë në vit, njëri në korrik dhe tjetri në fillim të janarit. Nëqoftëse merr dy katra brenda vitit të heqin nga puna. Një punonjës i nivelit zbatues vlerësohet me 2 apo 3, dhe askujt nuk i jepet arsye se përse është dhënë ky vlerësim. Zakonisht vlerësohet me 1, vetëm shefi dhe të tjerët marrin çfarë përmenda më sipër me qëllimin që të mos promovohen. Për ata që ka inat shefi përherë katra është gati”, përgjigjet për FOL ish punonjësi./Center Fol