3 hours agoScandal with the release of three people seized at 1m euros, the case returns to restoration
Periskopi(4 months ago)
(4 months ago)The Constitutional Court in Pristina has turned into reviewing the decision concerning the security measure against the three suspects that were seized at about 1m euros. Notification: The Constitutional Court Act in Pristina X Special Department on defendants E.A., A.K. and A.L. and the case returns to Pristina restoration, March 6th [...]
Notification:
The Basic Court Act in Pristina ) Special Department for defendants E.A., A.K. and A.L., and the case returns to restoration
Pristina, March 6th, 2026 -- Kosovo Court of Appeal -- has approved the Special Department's complaint to the Republic of Kosovo, and, according to official duty, the Constitutional Court Act in Pristina, the Special Department, PPPS.N.10/2026, dated 27,02,2026, has cancelled and the criminal case has turned it into restoration.
The Constitutional Court in Pristina, with PPPS.n.10/2026, on the date of 27.02.26, against defendants: E.A., A.K. and A.L., because of the criminal work The Spurging of Money From Article 302, regarding Article 31 of KPRK, concerning Article 56.1 points of the Law for the Prevention of Money Laundering and the Combating of Terrorism, has rejected the Special Prosecutor of the Republic's Office for the detention of the task force and the same duty to release it immediately in the 272020.
The Appeals College has found that the complaint act is involved in substantial violations of the penal procedure provisions, violations that are related to the wrong implementation of the material provision, because the first degree court -- in the case of refusing the request of the Kosovo Republic's Special Prosecutor -- for the appointment of the detention measure -- has not provided sufficient reason for how it came to an end over the failure to exist on the basis of suspicion. Also, the reasoning of the complaining decision results in general, unclear and in some parts even contradictory.
The college of this court has estimated that the first degree court has not provided sufficient reasons on the grounds it has concluded that there is no doubt based that the defendants committed criminal work, and there is no basis for setting the measure of detention against them, because it has not made a complete assessment of the material found in the material records in relation to the elements of the criminal work they are suspected of, so the Court of Appeals has cancelled the complaint because the same one cannot stand as judicially as such.
