After voting the demarcation, awards begin for Ramiz Kelmendi

Kelmendi is charged with criminal activity “serious recovery”, due to suspicion that from unproved date until June 30th 2011, the company “Elkos”, in Fushe Kosova, Kelmendi's property has been misusing electricity, damaging the Kosovo Energy Corporation (KEK) to many of 22.801.19 euros.

The prosecutor of this prosecutor, Enver Sokoli, on February 22nd of this year, has addressed the Court of Appeals, with the proposal that the indictment against Ramiz Kelmendi be changed, rejected and the criminal proceedings fired.

In this letter to the prosecutor, to the Court of Appeals, which has provided “Justice Vow”, this proposal argues with the fact that the absolute prescription of prosecution has reached this case, since the establishment of the indictment, December 12, 2012, until the first act of the First Court, on December 21, 2017, has been more than six years.

This prosecutor, as noted in her letter, considers that in concrete cases it has come to the absolute prescription of prosecution, which the second-degree court also cares about under official office.

“Taking into account Article 106, par1, 1.5 KPRK points, prosecution cannot be taken if it has spent 3 years in carrying out the criminal work, punishable by more than 1 year in prison, while Article 107, par8 of KPRK, prosecution is prohibited in any case when the term of the prescription has passed, since, allegedly, the criminal act was committed by the date 30.0611, until today there is no firm conviction and the execution of the criminal work has passed over 6 years, I consider that the actual case of the prosecution has come to pass before and I consider that criminal prosecution to be violated by any other order of the court, and that the prosecutor has been issued to the court, and that the prosecutor has been issued in order of the court. And according to the decision of February 26, 2018, of the Court of Appeals, which has secured the “Justice Bet”, this court has made the decision by which it approved Kelmendi's complaint and cancelled its first degree decision, turning the case into restoration.

According to Appeals, the first degree has not given convincing reasoning, when it has rejected Kelmendi's claims that he is not responsible for the prosecution's prosecution, but if he has criminal responsibility, it should have persons responsible for his company.

The first-degree trial against what the defendant has filed in order to drop the indictment, with the claim that for all points of his business, authorized persons under labour contracts, which according to the defendant must give responsibility, if there is criminal responsibility in the concrete case, has refused the defendant's request without a convincing reasoning, but only by confirming that whether or not, the criminal work is to be existing in question will be confirmed in the key review”, further reportedly in Apel's decision.

According to the Court of Appeals, the actions Kelmendi is accused of is a work that many more can do. This court's criminal collegation estimates that the completion of the first-instance court in concrete cases is not fair, because the court has not been issued at all in key evidence confirming the well-founded suspicion of whether the criminal act of theft was committed by the defendant or not, because according to legal provisions the incriminating actions alleged in the prosecution are actions that any person can commit to any person who will say the owner of the entity, but in a concrete case does not rule the possibility of performing of this criminal work is also the person who acts in the interest of the user, so that the author of the person who has the authorization to the authority of the one.

Given the fact that the defendant is the owner of the company “Elkos” includes several working points in Kosovo's entire territory, as well as the fact that all of his working points are committed to responsible persons, which also offers concrete evidence in this case and that work contracts, then turns out responsible for the alleged incriminating actions can fall into the burden of responsible persons who have contracts and on the basis of contracts are responsible for their work, so the court estimates that the prosecutions in this direction are <25x> in the decision of February 26, 2018.

The Court of Appeals has also asked the court to avoid the violations found by this court to assess Kelmendi's objections and complaint and to consider the Appeals Prosecutor's proposal.

“We re-established the judge of the case should avoid the above-intensive violations, assess the evidence offered by the defendant, and, after the need to take into account other complaint claims, as well as the Appeals Prosecutor's Proposal, and then make the right decision and be based on legal provisions”, it is said at the conclusion of the Appeals Court.

Otherwise, at the Constitutional Court in Pristina, initial sessions were held on December 21, 2017, and the second review on January 29, 2018, in which Kelmendi had denied guilt and demanded that Judge Rrustem Begolli drop the indictment against him. Judge Begolli, on January 29, 2018, had rejected Kelmendi's objections and had thus confirmed the indictment.

In line with Beglo's decision to ensure “Justice Vow”, it was said that following the analysis and examination of the subject paperwork, the court has found that the defendant Kelmendi's request in this phase of the prosecution's prosecution procedure cannot be approved, because the actual situation for the existence of criminal work will be confirmed after the trial.

Against that ruling, Kelmend was addressed to the Court of Appeals, claiming that the first degree has committed substantial violations of the penal procedure's provisions, wrong or incomplete confirmation of the actual situation and violation of criminal law.

Kelmendi had proposed that Apel change Judge Begoll's decision and cast an act of insubordination. Kelmendi in his objections against the indictment had stressed that all of this was caused by KEK officials, the District in Pristina, in order to cause him harm and tarnish his name. Meanwhile, at the second review session, prosecutor Menduhi Kastrati, who had filed the indictment against Kelmendi, had said Kelmendi's objections against the indictment were unfounded and had asked Judge Begoli to reject Kelmendi's objections.

The Founding Procuror in Pristina, has accepted the accused's parachute that concerns opposition to evidence and the request to cast the indictment.

We've analyzed the defendant's parachute and at today's hearing we're verbally declared opposing the same parachute.

The accused in his statement has attached some evidence that is not in the survey, such as presenting a list of what is evidenced to be the deputy of the 4th legislature, then, a copy of the business number, a tip on business registration, consumer transactions released by the damaged side, and also a working contract of a worker working under his own business”, prosecutor Kattra had said.

Kastrati had declared that the indictment has sufficient joint evidence confirming the underlying suspicion, with which he has asked the court to decide on its decision to refuse the request to contest evidence and drop the indictment.

According to the indictment of December 12, 2012, which had also provided “Justice Trust”, Kelmendi is charged with serious criminal activity “serious recovery”, due to the suspicion that from unproved date until June 30th 2011, the company “Elkos”, in Fushe Kosova, Kelmen's property has been misusing electricity.

The prosecution claims that when KEK workers have gone to do searches at that company, they have found that the intended defendant has used electricity unauthorizedly, not registering two-thirds of the energy, as two transformatators of the current that have been out of measure have been found there, while one component was cut off from the connection.

On the basis of the indictment, with these actions, two-thirds of the electricity had not been registered, with what KEK has done damages worth 22.801.19 euros.