[ad_1]
The Commission claims the existence of immediate and irreparable damage that could not have been caused by the execution of the final judicial decision of the administrative appeal – which forced the publication of the names of private sponsors who financed the luxury events on the coast, assessed by the Supreme Court as hypothetical and without any legal basis.
The Administrative Academy of the Supreme Court described the opinion of the Independent Qualification Commission KPK as hypothetical, that the implementation of the final decision of the Administrative Court of Appeal would have serious and irreversible consequences, forcing it to announce the sponsors of an event to be held in September 2021 at the luxury resort “Marina Bay” in Vlora.
In the reasoned judgment of the Supreme Court, the progress of the entire process is presented, starting from the request submitted by BIRN to the Commission for information on the source of the funds for the campaign; the procedure in which the Commissioner for the Right to Information and Personal Data Protection ordered the provision of a complete copy of the sponsorship agreement; the decision of the Administrative Court of First Instance in Tirana granting the KPK rights, taking into account the financial consequences for the institution; the decision of the Administrative Court of Appeal explicitly requiring the provision of complete data; and the detailed observations made by the Commission in the request for suspension of the execution of the decision, which appear to be similar to the claims made in the appeal expected to be examined on June 11.
“The panel considers that the petitioner has not presented any legal arguments for the request for suspension of the execution of the Administrative Court of Appeal’s decision. The grounds for the request for suspension of the execution of the Administrative Court of Appeal’s decision are essentially to challenge the legality of the decision”, assessed the Administrative Academy chaired by Judge Sokol Sadushi and member judges Gentian Medja and Sokol Englesi.
They held that, when a court specifies interim procedural measures, the law requires the existence of reasonable suspicion that the actions or omissions of the opposing party have violated the subjective rights or legitimate interests of the subject of the complaint or appeal or the court’s judgment. They added that, in the circumstances of the present case, there was an immediate and known risk of causing serious and irreparable harm if the court did not impose interim measures.
The Supreme Court held that the arguments raised by the petitioner must be specific and refer to facts and evidence to prove their existence.
“Generally speaking, the legal grounds on the content of an appeal alone are not sufficient to accept a request for a stay of execution of a final court judgment, because the substantive review of an appeal is different from the review of a request for a stay,” the upward court said.
The Administrative Academy assessed and stressed that “the lack of these legal arguments in the request submitted leads to the rejection of the suspension request” and stressed that the court’s decision must be implemented.
“Regarding the specific case, the Academy noted that the petitioner had justified his position by relating it to issues that do not fall within the scope of the procedure for suspending the execution of the final decision, but rather to the “legal basis for the cause of recourse”, the Supreme Court noted, and based on these grounds, decided not to accept the request for suspension of the execution of the decision that compelled the KPK to provide a full copy of the requested documents.
The Independent Qualifications Commission is a constitutional body established within the framework of judicial reform to review judges and prosecutors with the ultimate goal of restoring public confidence in the judiciary.
During his tenure, hundreds of magistrates were held accountable to the KPK and punished with dismissal for receiving gifts or sponsorships from third parties, which were assessed based on potential conflicts or apparent interests. KPK members themselves refused to adhere to the same standards, keeping the names of sponsors who financed the 2021 event secret.
The Administrative Appeals Panel asked: “(…) on what basis should the transparency standards already applied in the review process for sitting judges not apply to prospective judge commissioners?”
[ad_2]
Source link
