36 minutes agoDecan Urbanism Director left in house arrest
Periskopi(5 years ago)
(5 years ago)The Constitutional Court in Pec has rejected the Constitutional Prosecutor's request in Pec for the appointment of the detention measure and has appointed the measure of house arrest to Decani Urbanism Director Rame Melaj, due to suspicion of carrying out the criminal work “the misuse of official office or authority”. As Court reports, “The defendant R.M. [...]
As the Court reports, “The defendant R.M. m.date 03.03.20, 06.08,2020, 29.12.20 at the K.D. facility, the quality of the director for Urbanism and Environmental Protection, exploiting official duty and authority, exceeds its competencies, and with the goal of profiting the other person, and acting contrary to Article 4 of the Law for Nemuna National Park and contrary to Article 5 of the Law for Construction, as well as damage to damage The DAPK in Pec issues seats to allow construction of the facilities, in a manner that, the defendant as Director The QMM in D being not an official person authorised to accept the request from the Directorate for Economics and Development, the same issues the decision on municipal environmental permission and allows for building facilities in the area of the national park, with which the area under law manages the Ministry of Environment, Spatial Planning and Infrastructural Planning, for which no construction permits can be issued in the absence of the area's specific area space plan for the National Parks of Nemuna”.
With what he had to commit a crime “Use official position or authority” That's it. 2 connected to money. One and Article 77 of KPRK are said away in the court's announcement.
“The defendants R.M. tribunals were assigned the amount of house arrest at a length of (1) month assessing that it is sufficient to ensure the presence of the defendant in the procedure since, in this phase of the procedure, investigative action is still being taken with the aim of identifying new evidence so that with the possible finding of the defendants in freedom, the court estimates the same could easily eliminate, alter or hide evidence of criminal work in order to avoid or reduce its criminal responsibility and thus prevent the normal course of criminal procedure.
The court under official office considered other alternative measures and found that the house arrest measure, as a softer measure, is sufficient for ensuring the defendant's presence in the procedure and in the function of development without obstacles to criminal procedure and that other measures would not be adequate.
Against this decision the disgruntled side is entitled to complaint at the Appeals Court”.
