Lawyer: The Constitution set a deadline, but not the consequence in the event of non-compliance of the Parliament

Lawyer Ardian Bajraktari has estimated that the Constitutional Court's act on the issue of the constitution, although it has set a 30-day deadline, has not clarified the effect in the event of its transition.

On the Tv1 show, Bajraktari said the Constitutional decisions are binding to be implemented by all institutions, but in this case, according to him, there has been a lack of clarity needed in some key elements of the act.

The Constitutional Court's decisions are binding for implementation by the judiciary and all sides addressed. However, there is a lack of clarity in the court, especially in the aftermath of the 30-day” deadline, Bajraktari said.

He added that while the bias is relatively clear in the reasoning part, the device lacks essential elements that would make it complete and without legal dilemmas. /Periscope/

 

 

The reasoning section is well written, but there was no response to some of the issues addressed by political subjects. It would be helpful for the Court to address the questions raised, to clarify even if the technical leader's actions before publishing the act have been in line with the Constitution”, he stressed.

Bajraktari said the lack of specification after the 30-day deadline leaves room for different interpretations and institutional uncertainty.

The court has set a deadline, but it has not specified what happens after its completion. This means that it has not adequately clarified the situation in concrete case”, he stressed. /