Two months of house arrest for Istog municipality officials, Decani Kline suspected of misusing construction permits

The house arrest measure has also continued with the Director of Urbanisation in the Cline municipality, Lawrence Marleech and the director of this directorate, Ali Gashi, as well as Director for Urbanism in the Decani Community Rame Melaj.

The house arrest measure will be in effect until October 11th 2021.

Such a decision was made by the pre-procedure court, Nushe Kuka-Mekaj, who has found the Peja Prosecutor's request for continued house arrest.

In the court's rulings provided by “Justice Vow”, it is alleged that the key condition of the well-founded suspicion that the defendants have carried out the works, though, according to the court, the prosecution had issued dim reasoning on the proposal to continue the house arrest measure.

The court has argued that once the defendants were found in freedom, there is danger that they could change or hide, eliminate or change criminal evidence, actions that, according to the court, would affect the normal course of criminal procedure.

The court has drafted the Peja prosecution, when it was summoned to the grounds that defendants will influence witnesses when, according to the court, the prosecution has yet to identify any witnesses.

It is absurd to assume that defendants can influence witnesses who are unknown to the Prosecution and to the Court, so such reasoning remains as pre-fraud”, said the Kuka-Mekaj Court's argument.

It has also rejected Peja's prosecution's claim that defendants could carry out or repeat criminal acts of abuse of official office, calling it prefraining the legal provision.

According to the Peja Court, this base cannot be valid, as defendants are arrested and unable to commit criminal acts.

“E how such work can be done by persons who are currently not exercising official task”, the Peja Court's reasoning states.

Different, J. B R.G.G. and R.B., with dates of 16,10,2020, 28,09,20 large on the date of 04.11,2020, as well as the date of 14,12,2020 on the C. I, allegedly acting as co-chairman and the defendant J in the quality of the director for Urban Planning and Environment, while the defendants R and R, in quality of officials close to this director, using office and official authority, exceed their competencies, and in order to benefit the rich benefit for the other person, by acting in opposition to the Construction Law, as well as the Council Development Plan release construction permits for construction, in the way that defendants are aware that the cadstra is set up for the construction requirement under the bloc, where construction plans are provided with construction opportunities for construction, and higher performance are possible by the property and the property of the prosecutor.

With what, in co-operation they had to commit criminal acts “Using official position or authority” by Article 414 paragraph 2 concerning Article 31 and 77 of KPRC.

The E.B. with a date of 21.9.2018, in the C.I, quality of the official person, the official environment director of Urban Planning and Environment, takes part personally in official matters that a member of her family has financial interest, in that, the defendant as official for the environment, the economic subject in which the co-owner is the defendant's co-owner, theDesigns and signs the environmental permission with which the investor is known the right of environmental permission to build an aristo-ban.

What he had to do criminal work “Interest Conflict” by Article 417 par. One of KPRK.

The defendants L.M. and A.G. from the 20,09,2019 consecutive to the 09.11,2020 object of K. K, acting as co-chairman and defendant L in the quality of director for Urbanism and Environmental Protection, while defendant A in the quality of the official close to the director, taking advantage of office and official authority, exceeds their competencies, aimed at benefiting the other person by acting in opposition to the Law for Construction, without implementing any urban planner, and then releasing construction permits for overbuilding, even though the area map has been granted approval by MHI, but has not yet been read out of a re-initive plan to the municipality and the investor's budgetary advantage through the benefit of land and landfilling. And, with a date of 04.10.20, in the K.K facility, defendants acting as co-chairmen contrary to the Law for Construction, and the Urban Rule Plan 01.nr-351-1830/2016, of the date 25.3.2016, issue construction permits that, the defendants originally issue construction conditions that are allowed to build the apharisto-bane object in two letters later the same time, the investor in which they release construction permits the production of the Agency at II at the end of the investor with the benefit of the increase of the surface and the asset.

With what in their interaction they had to commit criminal acts “Using official position or authority” by Article 414 paragraph 2 concerning Article 31 and 77 of KPRK.

The defendant L.M. from 12,07,2019 and continuing on with the date 22.04.20, at the K.K, the quality of director for Urbanism and Environmental Protection, using office and official authority, exceeds its competencies, with the aim of benefiting rich for the other person, acting in opposition to the Law on Railways, in a way that, the defendant in the framework of his official duty without authorisation, with the date of 12,0719, issues with which the investor's approach to the distance of 20 meters from the railway line after changing the decision, and drawing the distance from the distance of the railway line to the distance of 17th and the distance of the railway.

What he had to do with criminal work “The use of official position or authority” by Article 414 paragraph 2 concerning paragraph 1 concerning KPRK's 77.

The defendant R.M. with dates 03.03.20, 06.08,2020, 29.12.20 in the K.D. facility, in the quality of director for Urbanism and Environmental Protection, exploiting office and official authority, exceeds its competencies, and with the goal of benefiting the other person rich, and acting contrary to Article 4 of the Law for the Nemuna National Park and contrary to Article 5 of the Law for Construction, as well as damage to the damage The DAPK in Pec issues seats to allow construction of the facilities, in a manner that, the defendant as Director The DMM is not 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 Infrastructure, for which no construction permits can be issued in the absence of the area's spatial plan for Nemuna National Park,

With what he had to do criminal work “The use of official position or authority” by Article 414 paragraph 2 concerning paragraph 1 and Article 77 of KPRK.