Hasani: A clear but two- defecting Constitutional device

However, he has identified some <x0-decent effect> that, according to him, makes the decision problematic: the order for the session to continue Abni Dehari, though, according to Hasani, he has committed constitutional violations, and why MPs are ordered to participate in the session and vote, but without the provision of punitive measures.

He has voiced confidence that the lack of punitive measures is the consequence of, as he calls it, “intervention” of Kosovo President Vjosa Osmani in justice, through her public statements.

The Constitutional Court decided on August 8th that the Speaker of the Parliament should be elected by an open vote, ordering Deharin to return the agenda, as scheduled on April 8th.

In the decision, it said that the name of a candidate for prime minister could only be put to the polls until three times, while MPs will have time to complete the constitution within 30 days after the act of prejudice is published in the Official Journal.

Mr. Hasan, how do you assess the Constitutional Court's act of August 8th?

 

 

Enver Hasani: Reason has not yet appeared, and I will only comment on the slide. The device shows that there is a clarity as to what parties should do in this case, so MPs regarding the institution.

In a professional way, I think it's strange how Mr. Avni Dehari's constitutional violation can be found and ordered to continue where he violated the Constitution. This cannot be reasoned with constitutional court standards. And second, you know, even in the 2014 act, even in the first month of the Constitutional Court, it's said MPs should stay and vote, but now it commands them. Even this conflicts with the postatulatum of free mandate, and I believe it is difficult to comply with constitutional standards.

 

 

I think the court has made a mistake in this direction because it had to point out the sanctions, if the MPs did not consult the Assembly within 30 days, such as some disertibility, loss of mandate, and so on. In that sense, I think there are two defects, which in terms of trial and constitutional law are slightly compatible. In the part of clarity, if there is good will, the device is extremely clear.

“State unconstitutional began when Dehar changed the agenda”

Now who should set the session and when can it be called?

Enver HasaniThe slide says it should be called by the date Mr. Dehari made the proposal for a hidden vote, what he did arbitraryly, the way the agenda changes, the court has ordered the execution of the agenda of April 8th. There should be a point when the unconstitutional situation has begun. The unconstitutional situation began when Mr. Dehar changed the agenda. Mr. Dehar is due to continue the session as scheduled on April 8th, when the constitution's scenario is set. So it should be counted 30 days from the beginning.

How should this aspect, given the mandate again to Mr. Dehari, be resolved if he has committed constitutional violations?

Enver Hasani: Mr. Dehar now has a constitutional obligation and he cannot deviate, because it is clear that he now has an order to execute the scenario of April 8, 2025. That command he must not deviate. It should be proposed up to three times the same candidate, which means every 24 hours can be proposed by the same party within 30 days, but not the same candidate, every three times it must be changed. In a slide the court is silent, because you cannot force MPs to vote and the court has not shown the consequences of law, has done the same as in the pretrial. But unlike last time, the device was clear.

“Disremembering consequences, decision failure”

What happens after 30 days unless the Parliament is binding?

Enver Hasani: I believe that this time, since we're connecting, as the people are, the <x0man is literally”, Mr. Kurti said yesterday he'd clearly carry out every Constitutional Court decision, the device is very clear and I have no reason he won't do that.

What happens if an MP or a group of MPs do not participate in the session or vote? Is it a constitutional offense?

Enver Hasani: While the court has ordered the vote, it's about court order and any other action constitutes violations of the Constitution on the part of the deputies, but the court on the device has not indicated what happens next, what the consequences are, and here's the defect of this act.

“

Why do you believe he didn't let the masses know?

Enver HasaniI can speculate, lack of courage. The reason the court has not passed to the end is [Kosovo's] presidential statement Vjosa] Osmani. It is evident that it may have influenced the device, in terms of not determining the measures, this is its intervention in justice, and in one way or another it has commissioned the court, and the court has not gone to the end of this act, because it is clearly seen that a judge is opposed.

What if someone doesn't know the court's decision, arguing that Judge Radomir Luban may have voted for him?

Enver Hasani: It cannot happen, it would be the most foolish if a political party did it. So has the president's action been completely unacceptable and the immature clear because it cannot be known who that judge has voted against or participated in the vote. That doesn't become public, but it went public at the press conference and attacked the judge, it's intervention in the trial.

So you believe that the court is afraid of the president and she has intervened in justice?

Enver Hasani: I'm sure that's the reason for the device. The lack of punitive measures in terms of deadlines after 30 days and Mr. Dehari is a consequence of the influence by President Osmani.