Erion Veliaj sues at the Administrative Court Presidency and Prosecutor Who investigated

According to the prosecutor's appointment indictment, it was carried out in flagrant opposition to the law, as at the moment of the decree it failed to meet the binding legal criteria for exercising the prosecutor's office.

Veliaj also demands that the Supreme Prosecutor's Council be forced to make a decision on the immediate outcome of magistrate's status and illegally exercise of the prosecutor's office in question.

“The president of the Republic has issued a decree in open opposition to the procedure governing provisions of law No. 8737, implementing a non-legal appointment and in the absence of personal material competence to appoint a subject that did not meet the criteria of law. This fact constitutes a flagrant violation of the judicial order and a typical case of the absolute inadequacy of an administrative act, in the sense of Article 108 of the Administrative Procedure Code, since (i) the act has been exposed to flagrantly contrary to the legal norms of the law; (i) the appointed person failed to meet general and specific legal conditions; and (ii) the public body has exercised its competence for appointment in violation of the validial conditions of the act, making the judicial decree inefficient and non-infectious and non-fiscitious, the indictment is said.

In Veliaj's indictment, it says, among other things that by analyzing the president's decrees for the appointment and dismissal of prosecutors, the Court has estimated that these acts, although derived from a constitutional body, have individual-administration characters, as they are related to the exercise of executive competence in public service reports and may affect judicial andcivile rights.

For this reason, the Court has concluded that such decrees “should be the subject of complaint and judicial review” in the sense of administrative procedure law.