The Speaker of the Parliament, Elisa Spiropali, has provided a clarification on the opinion of the Venice Commission regarding the mandate of the SP MP, Olta Xhaçka.
She emphasized that the Assembly has acted within its constitutional powers, respecting parliamentary sovereignty, and that it has handled this process on legal grounds and not on the basis of interests.
"This was a constitutional and legal issue, not political, not partisan, nothing! The Assembly has acted within its constitutional powers and has respected parliamentary sovereignty, treating this process on legal charges and not on the basis of political interests," said Spiropali.
Statement:
I also wanted to say a few words, since there is a lot of abuse here in the session, but also in party rostrums and on screens. As is clear to everyone and has been expressed several times and as the Venice Commission also appreciates, the Assembly has not questioned and does not question the binding power of the decisions of the Constitutional Court. This is not surprising. This, together with the principle of constitutional loyalty, is clear to all of us, because we respect it every day in our work.
I addressed the Venice Commission with specific questions, not about the mandate of a deputy, which in fact should be exercised freely within constitutional limits, without being disturbed by abuses, and this is as important in democracy as any other principle, but to clarify the way in which a mandatory decision is implemented due to the impossibility of a rule that imposes on a deputy how to vote.
This was a constitutional and legal issue, not political, not partisan, nothing! The Assembly acted within its constitutional powers and respected parliamentary sovereignty, handling this process on legal grounds and not on the basis of political interests.
Venice said, and spoke clearly, the decisions of the Constitutional Court are binding if the Constitution provides that an issue is put to a vote, Parliament cannot be forced to vote in a certain way. There is no politics for a court decision and even more so for the Venice Opinion that comes to our aid in dealing with these cases. The Opinion has 61 paragraphs and without separating phrases and to understand its overall meaning, it must be read and reread without haste and with clarity, without political interests and passions, and moreover without prejudice and slander.
Reading it as a whole, the conclusions of the Opinion and the press release of the Venice Commission itself clarify the questions I addressed; and in fact I would have been happier if we had resolved the issue within Albania and without going to the Venice Commission. This is because, as the Venice Commission also found, 1/5 of the deputies can directly address the Constitutional Court to request the incompatibility of the deputy's mandate according to the provisions of the law and no one should take away or deny this right.
Regarding the request submitted as you present it, it cannot be the subject of treatment in this plenary session. The Rules of Procedure do not provide for any procedure that we can apply in this case, as you request, because all levels of judgment have been exhausted, even voting in the Assembly. Except with 1/10 of the deputies you can address the Constitutional Court for any case and it is your right that 1/5 of the deputies, that is, the minority, set the Constitutional Court in motion. Thank you and this is the last thing I say on this issue.