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

 Kliko këtu për të tjera
Voxpress:

Ilir Beqaj: It took the Constitutional Court 7 months to decide on a security measure, what kind of justice is this?!

2026-01-31 12:39:12Aktualitet SHKRUAR NGA REDAKSIA VOX
Ilir Beqaj: It took the Constitutional Court 7 months to decide on a security
Ilir Beqaj

Former Minister of Health, Ilir Beqaj, has reacted publicly following the Constitutional Court's decision to reject his request against the security measure "prison arrest", describing the process as prolonged and meaningless by the standards of a state governed by the rule of law.

In a lengthy public statement, through his lawyer, Beqaj emphasizes that the Constitutional Court took seven months to review and decide on a security measure.

"What kind of justice is this?" he asks. 

Post by lawyer Ilir Yzeiraj

In the capacity of Mr. Ilir Beqaj's representative and on his behalf, below is his public statement regarding the decision-making of the Constitutional Court:

Honorable members of the Constitutional Court!

I am addressing you publicly following the announcement published on the Court's website on January 28, 2026, announcing that my request to challenge the GJKKO decision of July 6, 2024 on the security measure "prison arrest" has been rejected.

This undoubtedly makes me subjective and I believe that for this reason you can neglect this communication. You have the cliché that court decisions are not commented on.

But, since Albanians win cases at the ECHR (Strasbourg), this is because you too are giving unfair decisions.

Then, in a democratic society like ours, everyone has the right to freely express themselves against injustice. It is enough to do so peacefully and ethically.

I am not yet aware of the result of the vote. But the rejection of the request shows that at least 4 judges voted against my request, but perhaps all eight judges voted en bloc.
This public communication is only for those judges who voted to reject the request.

I filed a request with your Honorable Court on July 1, 2025. According to the previous notice, the hearing was to be held on December 23, 2025, while the notice of rejection of the request was made public on January 28, 2026. That is enough to understand how serious you are in handling the cases you judge. 7 months to assess a security measure. Does it make sense to issue a decision on a security measure 19 months after the first decision was issued? Such a prolonged review loses its function as an effective guarantee. What kind of justice is this? Who needs this kind of delayed justice?

For you, requests to overturn security measures may be "annoying", they may be "second-rate" compared to other, much more fundamental issues for the rule of law that you judge, but this should not lead you to comparatively more simplistic assessments in cases like mine.

On July 6, 2024, the GJKKO reasoned that, since the criminal offenses that I am suspected of having committed as a senior official provide for a high sentence, there is a risk that I will leave Albania. The GJKKO Appeal on August 7, 2024 also confirmed this risk.

But the texts of the reasoning of the first instance decisions and the Appeal of the GJKKO, if read, are contradictory to the decisions of these same courts against me.
From reading the decisions that I have asked you to overturn, it results:

️High-ranking official
The courts (July 6 and August 7) ​​have reasoned from the beginning that the general director of SASPAC is not a high-ranking official neither according to the Constitution (Article 135, point 2) nor according to the Criminal Procedure Code (75/a). Even though SPAK has entered its seventh year of operation, it still does not know who its subjects are.

Passive corruption
The courts (July 6 and August 7, 2024) have reasoned from the beginning that the suspicions of passive corruption are based only on conjecture. They have invited the prosecution for further investigations to determine the suspected value of corruption, because this is also related to the subject matter competence of SPAK. In the absence of a corruption value, however minimal, the accusation of corruption did not exist from the beginning.

Fraud with serious consequences
How serious consequences are qualified in Albanian criminal law is determined by a unifying decision of the Supreme Court of Justice of 2003. But that decision itself states that, based on the “current development of the country” (i.e. of 2003), serious consequences are any value over 2 million lek. The minimum wage nationwide has increased 5 times since 2003. Wasn’t the minimum value of serious consequences set at 10 million lek then? But this dismisses serious consequences. Coincidentally, one day before the request against me was dismissed, the Parliament approved amendments to the Criminal Code. Article 143/a/8 speaks of fraud against the financial interests of the EU. So, the criminal offense suspected of me under Article 143 has been qualified incorrectly. My defense had no way of knowing this until October 30, 2025, when it brought information to you. But you yourself should be interested in the development of criminal law in Albania. I believe Article 143/a/8 of the Criminal Code will come into force in 2–3 weeks. That's why the charge of fraud didn't exist at the beginning.

Violation of equality in the tender

A 2006 CC decision is enough to prove that the accusation of violation of equality in tender is unfounded from the beginning. The EU acquis is not a source of criminal law in Albania. Albania is not yet an EU member state. The EU regulations that I am alleged to have violated are not yet law in Albania. Meanwhile, the famous PRAG Guide is not law either in the EU or in Albania. So this doubt did not exist from the beginning.
If the above may seem to belong to the judgment of the merits, I disagree.

I disagree because the suspected criminal offenses were artificially placed in SPAK's request for a security measure. The maximum sentence was artificially increased to raise the alibi of the risk of departure. What prompted me to leave the country? I had and still have another criminal proceeding for a much more serious criminal fact and I had the measure "compulsory appearance".

According to your procedure, we do not have the opportunity to be heard. Your rules prevent us from speaking in front of you. In the 7 months that you have been handling the case, you have not even given us 2 hours of time to speak before you. If I had the opportunity, you would have heard from me what I have stated above on December 23, 2025. Also the expected changes to the Criminal Code, because the draft with the changes was released for public consultation in October 2025.
I am clear about what the justification for rejecting the request will be. It will be very formalistic.

Typical reasoning of a court of fact.
But you, honorable ones, are not the fourth instance of the judiciary in Albania.
For years you have been turned into the fourth instance of the trial. It has happened day after day. Those members who came from the judiciary have brought this spirit. They have brought the procedural spirit, the excessively long deadlines for trial and reasoning.
Therefore, perhaps it should be prohibited by law for judges from the three instances of the judiciary to be members of the CC.

This week began with the formalization of the Justice Corporation. On Monday, the inaugural meeting of the Corporation was held. At that meeting, concerns were also shared about the unfair ratio between detainees and prisoners in Albania.
I did not expect my request to be accepted simply because it pertains to this unfair ratio. But the illogical rejection of my request is clear evidence that you do not care at all about the concerns of Albanian society.

Honorable members of the Court,
I have no particular interest in the reasoning of the decision.
But you have the opportunity to act as a court of law. For the benefit of anyone who encounters issues like these in my case at the three levels of judgment.
You have the opportunity to establish the framework of senior officials subject to SPAK.
You have the opportunity to assess the legal weight of EU regulations as long as Albania is not a member state of the EU.

You have the opportunity to establish a mechanism that allows courts to update past absolute monetary values ​​that determine specific levels of criminal damage.
If you provide an assessment for these issues, you will also directly influence the reduction of court cases, because you will orient the courts towards more unified decision-making.
I hope that the reasoned decision will be at the height of your role: real protection of freedom and legality.
With respect,
Ilir Beqaj


Në përputhje me standarded JTI

Video

SHIKO KANALIN NE YOUTUBE
×