The court reasons dropping the indictment for corruption against Libun Ali and others

This court has even estimated that Aliu and others acted on their law and competencies when they refused certain requirements for allowing construction conditions in those affected.

The court on August 23rd, for the second time, has rejected the indictment for corruption against current environment minister, Spatial Planning and Infrastructure, Libron Aliu and other indictees, Ardian Oluri, Zejnula Rexhepi, Nazife Krasniqi, Bahie Uka and Mimoza Berisha-Prestreshi.

This decision was taken by the chairman of the court, Judge Alban Ajvazi outside the court hearing, under which he has approved the defence requirements for dropping the indictment and rejecting evidence.

The stated ruling states that evidence and evidence that the prosecution has attached to the subject's paperwork does not result in a good doubt that the high-ranking indictees have committed criminal acts that are placed on them.

The alleged “have established within their authorization, authorisations of these defined by law and are connected and derived from the official positions they have exercised, which in this context include deciding on the requirements set forth for providing building conditions to persons/pals seeking to be equipped with the same ones, as has happened in a concrete case when the injured have now sought to be equipped with construction conditions for individual construction”, the court ruling states.

Under the stated decision, the accused, praising that the request filed by the injured was contrary to the Urban Regulatory Plan, had refused the same by allowing the injured to be punished in the administrative procedure, which had been exploited by disgruntled parties.

And these acts of the accused, according to the Court of the First Court, exclude arbitrary nature and any link to the existence of any purpose that is caused to damage to the damaged.

It is wrong not to adopt the demands of the parties, to be read and interpreted as purposes for these parties to be harmed by the official persons who make these decisions on the basis of relevant authorisations entrusted to them by law, unless they offer concrete evidence from which the accused have acted on this purpose, since any decision the side is disgruntled can file by arguing with the mistakes of the first degree”, the decision states.

Regarding the indictment body's claim that the accused would have to implement the Urban Development Plan as a higher-level plan, the court has stressed that it is not up to the prosecution body to make that definition and that, according to the court, it is unclear what the State Prosecutor is based on when he has made such a definition.

As for the criminal offence of “respect the execution of judicial decisions” for which Oluri, Uka and Berisha-Presreshi are charged, the court's argument is said that, in the concrete case, the proposed evidence does not result in a good doubt that the accused have refused to comply with or have implemented within the deadline any powerful decision of any Court in the Republic of Kosovo.

“If we refer to the decision of September 6, 2017 of the Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning (MMPH), then the same is the decision of an administrative body and not a judicial body, so it is not covered by this legal provision and its failure does not attract criminal responsibility”, the decision says.

The ruling is said that even if the prosecution body refers to the rulings of the Constitutional Court in Pristina on November 8th 2017 and the decision of the Court of Appeals on November 30th 2017, then Pristina's Commission, the highest accused have acted on those decisions, respectively, having again decided regarding the requirement for issuing construction conditions.

According to the ruling's reasoning, the prosecution body's intention to cause damage to the injured is based on the statement of the injured Dan Imer, which the court has estimated the discontent of the injured in the quality of the application's submissions is expected and understandable, and that for the court unlike the prosecution it is not enough to raise doubts about the purpose of official persons.

The state prosecutor's claim that because it is not decided as the side has demanded, then the same is caused damage, but even if it has been caused evental damage, the administrative body should not decide based on whether it is caused damage to the side, but if the demand submitted by the side” is based on the ruling argument.

As for the prosecution body's reference to the witness, which from the quality of the legal official in MMPH, has stated that MMPH's decisions were meritable and final, according to the court's decision, is contrary to the Constitutional Court's decision in Pristina of August 2nd 2020, which had concluded that MMPH's decisions were neither merit nor final.

A reason for the ruling is said to have taken into account the second-instance court's recommendations, but that the court in the first instance also in terms of clarification and treatment of each of the recommendations has decided to reject the accusation.

That, since, according to the court, as far as legal irregularities are concerned, it in the earlier ruling was not referring to the same, but the uncertainty expressed as contradiction of the decision issued by the MMPH, in which the accused's decision is bound to implement a legal provision only in the case of lack of an urban regulatory plan, and which according to the court in concrete case has existed.

“If the second-instance court has referred to the legal opinion concerning the implementation of the above decision, then the court estimates that rightly, the accused have not demanded such an opinion since the accused have been obliged to act in a way that was not possible to be taken, in terms of the existence of the urban regulatory plan, and that the bypassing of this plan, while the same has existed and has been in power, rightly estimated that the accused may cause legal consequences, and the same is to impose responsibility for the actions or non-compliances of the court's decision.

As for the matter, Apel's recommendation for the duties and responsibilities of the accused, according to the Foundation, by no party in the procedure, has been disputed with the rights and responsibilities of the accused in relation to the making and executing of decisions.

The prosecution's <x0.>Organi points out that the accused acted in terms of authorisations they had, but that they misused the same and that the accused in all their statements have acknowledged the fact that they have made decisions, giving their reasons for this form of decision, respectively, on all actions undertaken in relation to that administrative issue”, the statements in the decision.

The tribunal is also said to have assessed the defendants' defence claims regarding the investigation deadline, respectively, the establishment of the indictment after the deadline or the proclamation of specific evidence as unacceptable, but that the court has found these claims unfounded and for the same has not been issued in the embankment of reasoning taken into account that the same ones are now not hurt.

In June of this year, the Constitutional Court in Pristina had approved requests for dropping the indictment for corruption against Minister Aliu and five other indictees, but such a decision had been annulled by the Court of Appeals and the case had returned to restoration.

Otherwise, on March 23rd, 2021 “Justice Vow” had announced public opinion that against Minister Aliu burdens charges of misuse of official office or authority, during the time he exercised the office of director of the Urban Directorate in Pristina.

In this indictment, along with Libran Aliu, abuse of office or official authority is being charged with Ardian Oluri, Zejnula Rexhepi, Nazife Krasniqi, Bahtie Uka and Mimoza Berisha Prestreshi.

The six accused had been declared innocent at the initial session held on 30 April 2021.

According to the indictment set by Pristina Constitutional Prosecutor on July 24th 2020, it turns out that Lieburn Aliu, Ardian Oluri, Zamenula Rexhepi, Nazife Krasniqi, Bahtie Uka and Mimoza Berisha Prestreshi are charged that in the quality of official persons at the Urbanism Directorate in Pristina have misuseded office or official authority, not applying the urban development plan as the highest-level spatial plan in the neighbourhood “The West area has seen individual construction for housing, in the manner that defendant Lieburn Aliu has issued the No.05-351-290419 verdict of the 2702.2017 and the decision with 05 No.351-290419 date of 21.06.2017, along with defendants Nazife Krasniqi and Zejula Rexhepi.

Always in accordance with the indictment, in order to cause harm to the injured, top defendants have rejected as groundless the request for allowing the construction conditions of the injured Dan Imer, Robert Imeri, Robert Biblekay, Valon Kozmaqi, Albert Mudipi, Bujar Xerrxa, Silverd Haziray, Shaqir Arzakpi, Arben Qosaj, Denis Nushi, Drita Berisha, Mirsheti Lafaj, Naser Salihu, Gazmen Luboni, Bekim Mimoza, Ferdazi, Dri Bektash, Shiktash, Zuzakkatz, Zjellat Shivolattina, Lbina, Pristina for the construction of the country's complex housing construction sites in the town site of the town of the entire town site, the town site of the town site. I-1H and I-250 of space integrity ) I've got a New Zone Cleaning Plan West Pristina for Chalcrells with No.413-3, 413-5, 413-6, 413-7, 4113-8, 413-9, 4113-11, 4113-11, 4113-12, 4113-13, 4113-13, 4113-13, 4213-13-13, 413-13-13-13, 413-13-13.

According to this indictment, defendants Ardian Oluri, Bahtie Uka and Mimoza Berisha Prestreshi, even though the Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning has made the decision with no on the same course. A-231/2017 on the 06.09.2017 date where he had approved Dan Imer's Anxiety, from Pristina, and had abolished the 05.nr decision.351-290419 on the 2106.2017th of the Pristina Urbanism Directorate, which had imposed the Commission of Urbanism on Pristina to implement the provisions of the Urban Development Plan. No.01-03181427, date 24.09.2013 and the constitution of the 1804 Law. L-110 for Construction, Supreme defendants Ardian Oluri, Bahtie Uka and Mimoza Berisha Prestreshi make their decision by No.05. 350-290419 on the date 07.05.2018, by which decision to harm the injured, reject the request of the injured owners Dan Imer, Robert Biblekaj, Valon Kozmaki, Albert Munipi, Bujar Xerrxa, Silverd Haziray, Shaqir Arbir Qbenaj, Denis Nushi, Drita Berisha, Mirsheti Lafaj, Naser Salihu, Gazmen Luboti, Bekim Miquo, Fatka, Droj Besik Bask, Shikkakkatz, Zve Miliqaktaj, Zjemokattina, Drita Nibina, Dritatina, Mirat for the construction of the Skopje's residential Home Construction Centre, Urgentin Urdezvardesh. I-1H and ė-2H of space integrity “I'm on the New Pristina regulatory plan. 413-3, 413-5, 413-6, 413-7, 413-8, 413-9, 413-10, 411-11, 413-12, 413-12, 4113-13-14, 4113-15, 4113-13-17, 4113-17, 4113-18, 4113-21, 4113-22, 4113-13, 413, 413-24, 413, 4113-26, 413, 413-ray-ray-twests were damaged.

With these actions, the prosecution charges accused Liburn Aliu, Ardian Oluri, Zamenula Rexhepi, Nazife Krasniqi, Bahtie Uka and Mimoza Berisha Prestreshi that, in co-ordination, the misuse of official position or authority, by Article 422 pars related to KPRK's Article 31.

At the second point of this indictment, Ardian Oluri, Bahtie Uka and Mimoza Berisha Prestreshi are also charged that in the quality of official persons at the Urban Directorate in Pristina have not implemented the decision No. A-231/2017 of the 06.09,2017 Ministry of Environment and Spatial Planning have not implemented the Constitutional Court Act in Pristina A. No.1827/17 of the date 08.11.2017, and the same have failed to implement the A.r 514/2017 Actual date 30.11.2017 of the Court of Appeals in Pristina, with which the Actvement is denied unequivocal for delaying the execution of the decision by the 06.092017 Environment and Space Planning Ministry.

The prosecution claims that despite these decisions, top defendants have again begun to deal with the subject from the very beginning that has to do with the construction conditions for the construction of the complex of individual houses in Pristina, in the Quadular parcels No.433-3, 413, 4113-7, 4113-9, 4113, 413-11, 413-11-11, 413-12-12, 413-13th, 413th-ray, 413th-1x-13th, 313th-13th, 413th-1th-1th, 413th-1th-1th, 1613th, 1613th, 1613th, 1413th

With these actions, the prosecution charges accused Ardian Oluri, Bahtie Uka and Mimoza Berisha Prestreshi that in co-ordination they have carried out the non-execution of judicial decisions, by Article 402 pars 2 concerning 1 pars related to KPR's Article 31.

Regarding the claims involved in this indictment, “The Justice Vow” has proved that prior to publishing this news to take a stand by Minister Libun Aliu, but the same has not responded to calls.

Otherwise, the Kurti 2 Government, in which Ali has assumed the position of Environment, Spatial Planning and Infrastructure Minister, has been voted on March 22nd 2021 by the Assembly of the Republic of Kosovo, released by the February 14th 2021 elections.