The suspension of Balluk, Rama: The decision is absurd, the Constitutional Court gives direction

The government's head told of the reward for pensioners, wage and pension hikes, the summit for the new Growth Plan, while it stopped and for the suspension of Deputy Prime Minister Belinda Balluk's post, broadcasts tch.

Rama singled out a dangerous precedent for what happened in the JKKO, where, according to him, a prosecutor and a judge came together by dismissing a minister and deputy prime minister.

A remarkable debate has filled the void of media clubs and social mirrors of the week after a prosecutor and a judge became together, head-to-head suspended a member of the government cabinet.

I don't want to enter into any debate about such a dangerous absurdity as this one, and I wait patiently for the Constitutional Court to address the issue of this unexplored road anywhere in Europe, but since we have been informed so far, nowhere in the world.

But I said to share with you today what the Venice Commission and the European Court of Strasbourg say on the matter.

Venice's attitude is actually very firm.

The courts should not suspend members of the government because doing so:

First, they affect the balance of powers.

As long as a minister is a political figure, part of the executive, responsible to Parliament and the prime minister, if the court suspends him, she practically:

• intervenes in government work,

• changes the composition of the executive,

• receives the powers belonging to the prime minister and president.

And this is considered by Venice an illegal breach of the border between powers.

Second, by doing so, courts create the possibility of instrumentising justice, and Venice often warns against <x0judical overreach”, or Albanian, extending the wing of the judiciary across the border of sharing politics, because this therefore paves the way:

• political pressures on government,
• institutional destabilisation,
• manipulation of the executive through criminal processes.

Thirdly, ministers have political functions, not administrative, and Venice has said it many times:
The suspension measures apply to officials, not to government members, because the minister is not the official “administrative”, but political authority.

Finally, the minister's judicial suspension is de facto pressure for his dismissal, since when a minister is suspended, not an individual is suspended, but the decision-making for one or more sectors the minister can cover is completely paralysed. And that's an unconstitutional leg.

The Venice Commission has expressed it:

The one of the principles of parliamentary democracy is that the government can only be dismissed by political organs, not by judicial organs. ”

What does the European Court of Strasbourg say about the matter?

That's interesting. The European court has never faced this absurdity and has therefore never given any specific decisions to mention the word “the minister's release from court”!

Why? Because no European state has ever seen a prosecutor and a judge come together, face to face in the dark, and suspend a minister.

So, once again, what a prosecutor and a judge have done in Albania, suspending a government cabinet member, is an unprecedented attempt, an unprecedented experiment, an undeveloped idea never developed before, and apparently, an unimaginated way anywhere else could be violated by the judiciary, to get the powers of the prime minister, the president of Parliament together.

But there are some very clear principles of the European Court that basically prohibit this antidemocratic adventure:

First, Strasbourg says security measures cannot be used:
• for political purposes,
• out of proportion,
• and influence the executive.

The suspension of a ministry from office is minimally unproportional and directly affects the executive.

Second, for Strasbourg the ministers are an expression of democratic will: the government stems from the parliamentary majority, and Strasbourg has written that: Any move that breaks down or violates the functioning of elected institutions should be justified with the highest democratic standard.

Eventually, both Venice and Strasbourg:

Judiciary NO ministers should be suspended.

At European standards, I don't think there's any standard left to invent Albania.

- Non-proportional basically.
- Anti-democratic in breath.
- unconstitutional to content
- The executive subservation.
- A threat to the invulnerability of democratic will
-against power sharing.
- against Venice standards.
- against the European Court of Strasbourg's jurisdiction

Well, eventually:
A minister's suspension is in itself absurd as a concept, because suspending a minister does not mean simply suspending an individual -- a public official of any level of ministers, but means suspending an authority with exclusive decision-making powers in one or more sectors and thus unable the relevant ministry to be represented in the Council of Ministers and proposes the government's weekly decisions on the sector's performance. It's an absolute nosens.

So the minister either stays on duty or leaves office:
• resign,
• from the prime minister,
• or in extremism with penalty of formal form by law.

There is no other. Court attorneys don't even get into this, and they never do. Never. Nowhere in Europe.

And if Albania were to enter into the anals of European justice history with such an invention, it would be, far away, an immature democratic and institutional show.

I hope the Constitutional Court spares this show to Albania”, Rama said. /Periscope/