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:

Holta Zaçaj announces the end of her mandate as President of the Constitutional Court: Let us stay away from political and media pressure

2024-12-12 18:19:13Aktualitet SHKRUAR NGA REDAKSIA VOX
Holta Zaçaj announces the end of her mandate as President of the
Holta Zacaj

The President of the Constitutional Court, Holta Zaçaj, announced today the end of her mandate.

Zaçaj announced the end of her mandate at a meeting organized with judges. She stated that her mandate, according to the Constitution, ends in 2025 and that she had a 9-year mandate.

She also announced that the Constitutional Court meeting did not reach a decision and was postponed.

Zaçaj also said that "the Constitutional Court must be free from political and media pressure", emphasizing that "the security of the constitutional mandate is important, because "without a Constitutional Court, security is violated and jeopardized".

Announcement of the Constitutional Court:

"The President of the Constitutional Court convenes the Meeting of Judges to declare the end of her mandate. "The Constitutional Court must be free from political and media pressure so that its function as the protector of constitutional principles is strong and credible."

Given the unprecedented attacks in the media directed at me personally as the President of the Constitutional Court, I issue this press release to clarify public opinion regarding the term of my tenure, based on my responsibility in the role as guardian of the Constitution to which I have sworn an oath and answer.

I would like to clarify that with decision no. 19, dated 10.03.2017, the Constitutional Court declared the end of the mandate of Judge Vitore Tusha, which constituted the legal basis for the appointing body to announce the candidacy procedures for the election of the next judge.

Due to the announcement and re-announcement of the call for candidates by the Supreme Court, in its capacity as the final appointing body, after the completion of the evaluation and ranking procedures of the candidates, the Judicial Appointments Council has forwarded to the Supreme Court the list of candidates, together with the relevant report and documentation.

The Special Meeting of the Judges of the Supreme Court, with decision no. 2, dated 16.01.2023, decided: "The election of Ms. Holta Zaçaj as a member of the Constitutional Court with a partial mandate, until the renewal in 2025."

On 25.01.2023, I began to exercise my duties as a member of the Constitutional Court after taking the oath before the President of the Republic. I clarify that I am not a substitute judge for Judge Vitore Tusha, therefore I was not elected within the 9-year mandate of the latter, which she has served and completed for the entire period provided for by the constitutional norm (i.e. for 9 years). Although that judge has chosen, in the meantime, to remain in office until her successor is appointed, this is permissible for a constitutional judge according to the provisions of Article 125, paragraph 7, of the Constitution in order not to impede the functioning of this Court.

I was elected to office in a new constitutional mandate that, for objective reasons, due to delays in procedures, began to be exercised late, but which, exceptionally from the usual rule of the duration of office for 9 years, was determined as limited due to the special provision of Article 179, point 3, of the Constitution.

I recall that Article 125 of the Constitution has sanctioned that the judge of the Constitutional Court remains in office for 9 years, without the right to reappointment, except when the Constitution itself has determined a different date or a limitation of the constitutional mandate, such as the case of mandates limited by the Constitution as provided for in the third paragraph of Article 179 of the Constitution. This is precisely the case of my mandate which has been limited by this transitional provision according to which “In order to ensure the regular renewal of the composition of the Constitutional Court, the judge who will replace the judge whose mandate expires in 2017, will remain in office until 2025”.

So the time limit of my mandate comes from the Constitution itself and not from the hypothetical interruption in the middle of the mandate of member Vitore Tusha, as is being criticized in the media. It is the mandate of that judge that ended on March 10, 2017. This date does not determine either the beginning or the end of the mandate of her successor, which in principle is a constitutional mandate that ends in 2025 (as above, article 179, point 3).

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the appointing body itself, despite the way it announced the full vacancy for the subsequent mandate, in its decision on my election as a constitutional judge, states that the mandate is partial "until the renewal in 2025."

The fact that this mandate is partial does not mean that it is "substitute" but that this mandate, in exception to the constitutional rule, was impossible to exercise for a full duration of 9 years, even in the best case, that is, even if I had been elected immediately after the end of Ms. Tusha's mandate, that is, within 2017. I declare that at the time of my candidacy, I was aware and accepted that I was running for an incomplete mandate that, according to the constitutional norm, ended in 2025.  

A different position would render inapplicable point 3 of Article 125 of the Constitution itself, which does not refer to “term” but to “tenure in office”, that is, to the effective time during which the constitutional judge exercises this constitutional function, and would mean that in any case the beginning of the subsequent judge’s term of office is linked to the end of the previous judge’s term, which does not result from the content and spirit of the constitutional provisions (Article 125, point 3 and Article 129 of the Constitution), from the practice of this Court since 1998, nor from the very manner of exercising and calculating the term of office of Judge Vitore Tusha herself.

A different position would imply the application of fixed dates for the beginning and end of the term of office, i.e. the constitutional judge has a priori determined the beginning and end of the time of exercising his duty, even though it is determined according to the constitutional norm by a defined legal event. Given that neither the constitutional provision, nor the decision of the Supreme Court for my election to office, has a defined date for the end of this duty, based on the general legal rules for calculating terms, the end of the term of office is the end of 2025. Article 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to which we also refer according to the specific regulations of the organic law and the Rules of Procedure of the Constitutional Court, provides that “When the term is set in days and hours, the day and hour on which the event began or the time from which the term should begin are excluded. A time limit set in weeks, months or years shall expire on the day of the last week or month that has the same name or number as the day on which the time limit began. When such a day is missing in the last month, the time limit shall expire on the last day of that month.

Given the conditions of the public position of the Supreme Court, dated December 6, 2024, based on the fact that the constitutional provision and the decision of my election as a member of the Constitutional Court did not have a specified date, but only the year in which the term of office ended, I decided to address the Venice Commission on December 10, 2024 to request an amicus curiae opinion, taking into account not only that in this specific case, issues related to constitutional principles are being raised for discussion and interpretation, which have been previously discussed by the Venice Commission, which carry public interest and will serve this Court in the future, but also to avoid constitutional disputes that may be caused by interpretations of constitutional norms that may conflict with the principles and powers sanctioned in the fundamental law.

Gjej rastin t`ju bëj me dije, duke marrë shkas nga publikimi i letrës së aplikimit tim të datës 25 shkurt 2022, se ajo i referohet termave të njoftimit të vakancave të shpallura nga Gjykata e Lartë, e cila në atë kohë kishte shpallur 3 të tilla me datë mbarimi, nga të cilat 2 vakanca të pjesshme dhe 1 vakancë  të plotë.

Dua të theksoj se në lidhje me këtë vakancë të fundit data e përcaktuar në shpallje nuk përputhet me datën e mbarimit të këtij mandati, pasi betimi i anëtarit kushtetues është bërë në shtator 2022, për rrjedhojë, sipas përmbajtjes së neneve 125, pika 3 dhe 129 të Kushtetutës, koha e qëndrimit në detyrë të këtij gjyqtari mbaron në shtator 2031, pra në një datë të ndryshme nga ajo e caktuar në njoftim. E sjell këtë shembull për të treguar që datat e përcaktuara në shpalljet e vendeve vakante dhe të përdorura në aplikim nuk janë përcaktuese për mbarimin e mandatit, llogaritja e të cilit bazohet në dispozitat kushtetuese dhe ngjarjes juridike të betimit.

Nga ana tjetër, Gjykata e Lartë, nuk ka treguar se cila është baza ligjore që përcakton se data e përfundimit të mandatit të gjyqtarit paraardhës është data referuese (dita dhe muaji) në të cilën përfundon edhe mandati i gjyqtarit pasardhës.

Ndërkohë, duket se data 10 mars 2025, si datë e përfundimit të mandatit tim, marrë si referencë nga Gjykata e Lartë në shpalljen e vakancës së datës 11.12.2024, është e njëjta ditë/muaj me ditën dhe muajin e mbarimit të kohës së qëndrimit në detyrë të znj. Vitore Tusha (10 mars 2017). Sqaroj publikun se në asnjë rast në 32 vite të funksionimit të Gjykatës Kushtetuese nuk ka pasur një praktikë në të cilën afati i mbarimit të mandatit të gjyqtarit pasues të ishte data (dita dhe muaji) i përfundimit të gjyqtarit paraardhës.

Sa më sipër, është qartësisht e lexueshme se Gjykata Kushtetuese nuk është lejuar të ushtrojë kompetencën e saj dhe Gjykata e Lartë ka vepruar në kundërshtim të hapur me dispozitat e nenit 127, pika 2, të Kushtetutës sipas të cilit “Mbarimi i mandatit të gjyqtarit të Gjykatës Kushtetues deklarohet me vendim të Gjykatës Kushtetuese”. Shpallja e vendit vakant nga Gjykata e Lartë, pa një vendim të Gjykatës Kushtetuese e ka zhveshur këtë të fundit nga kompetenca kushtetuese, veprim ky i paprecedent dhe i marrë me një urgjencë të pajustifikuar nga interesi publik apo forcë madhore, për të cilën të kërkohej ndërhyrje e menjëhershme.

Për më tepër, gjendur në kushtet e një mandati atipik, ku do të zbatohet për herë të parë një kufizim mandati që vjen nga dispozitat e reja kushtetuese, në rast se ka dilema apo pikëpyetjeve, është vetëm Gjykata Kushtetuese që mund të interpretojë Kushtetutën, kompetencë kjo që në rastin konkret u përdor nga Gjykata e Lartë në tejkalim të kompetencave të saj dhe në ushtrim të kompetencave të organit që sipas Kushtetutës bën edhe interpretimin përfundimtar të saj, Gjykatës Kushtetuese.

In view of the above, in the name of the public interest, in defense of the institution I lead, and to avoid constitutional disputes, today, December 12, 2024, I decided to address the Meeting of Judges in the exercise of my responsibilities as a member of this Court, to declare the end of my mandate as a constitutional judge. The Constitutional Court met today without reaching a decision, postponing the session to the following days.

In closing this statement, which I ask you to reflect accurately with all the facts presented, allow me, as the President of the Constitutional Court, to remind you and all the institutions of this country that:

The security of the constitutional mandate is essential to democracy itself. Without an independent body such as the Constitutional Court, which controls the legitimacy of laws and state acts, there is a risk of violating the balance of powers.

When the Constitutional Court is free from political, media and economic pressure, its function as a guardian of constitutional principles is stronger and more credible. This not only protects the individual, but also preserves citizens' trust in democratic institutions.

Furthermore, the security of tenure guarantees that any decision taken by the Court is based on the law, without fear of political and media repercussions. This is a fundamental principle for a legal system that seeks to be fair and equal for all."


Në përputhje me standarded JTI

Video

SHIKO KANALIN NE YOUTUBE
×