{"id":47195,"date":"2023-01-18T16:16:33","date_gmt":"2023-01-18T15:16:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/euronews.al\/en\/?p=47195"},"modified":"2023-01-18T16:16:33","modified_gmt":"2023-01-18T15:16:33","slug":"manjani-argues-why-xhackas-mandate-should-not-be-examined-by-the-constitutional-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/euronews.al\/en\/manjani-argues-why-xhackas-mandate-should-not-be-examined-by-the-constitutional-court\/","title":{"rendered":"Manjani argues why Xhacka’s mandate should not be examined by the Constitutional Court"},"content":{"rendered":"

Jurist Ylli Manjani sees the Constitutional Court’s review of Olta Xhacka’s mandate as completely unnecessary. <\/span><\/p>\n

In an interview for Euronews Albania, Manjani said that in relation to this case, where it was claimed that Xhacka’s husband, therefore the husband of a member of parliament, benefited from public property, there should be an administrative or criminal trial, not a constitutional review.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

According to him, Article 70 of the Constitution prohibits MPs from carrying out profitable activities and benefiting from public wealth, but it is not cited for family members or relatives. <\/span><\/p>\n

“I don’t know what the request is, I’m really not fully familiar with this issue because in order to give a complete opinion I need to know what the content is. However, the public case is this, it is claimed that Mrs. Xhacka’s husband has obtained the status of a strategic investor in the south of Albania and it is claimed that he has also received public property on this occasion, and the right to use it. For this reason, the Democratic Party insists that Mrs. Xhacka should hand over the mandate on the grounds that according to the Constitution,<\/span> Article 70 of the Constitution, MPs cannot perform profitable activities and benefit from public property. This is the case. If this is the case and there is nothing else, in my estimation, there is no room for review in the Constitutional Court.<\/p>\n

The Constitution has clearly and directly established that an MP cannot personally and directly benefit from public property and have a business, not the relatives and family members of the MP. Article 70 is very clear on this part, and the reference as to when one should head to the Constitutional Court is very clear. So the constitutional judgment, in this case, is redundant. If this were the case and with these facts, I do not think that the Constitutional Court should be invested today to judge this case. With so many facts, the case could have gone directly to an administrative or criminal court. It could be endlessly argued whether or not Mrs. Xhacka was involved in a direct conflict of interest, but it still wouldn’t be a constitutional trial,” he emphasized.<\/p>\n

The Constitutional Court has decided to consider in a court hearing today the demands of the opposition to remove the mandate of the MP and the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Olta Xhacka.<\/span><\/p>\n

The opposition has argued in the request to the Constitutional Court that the mandate of the Socialist Party MP, Olta Xhacka, is invalid because her husband has benefited from public property by being announced as a strategic investor by the Committee headed by Prime Minister Edi Rama. <\/span><\/p>\n

According to the opposition’s report, Olta Xhacka’s husband, through his company, has received the ‘strategic investor’ status from the government, valid for 30 years and granting him the right to use a beach in one of the most exclusive beach towns in southern Albania in Dhermi, as well as permission to build a 5-star hotel in this area, thus being involved in a direct conflict of interest.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE<\/strong><\/p>\n