5 hours agoState Bureau, PDK today abstains unless their remarks are taken into account, they don't vote at all
Periskopi(3 months ago)
(3 months ago)MP The PDK, Progress Gruda, in its address on behalf of the Parliamentary Group, has indicated that today they will abstain while conditioning the vote on future readings. Gruda stressed that the law [...]
Gruda stressed that the law has so far faced numerous shortcomings and noted that the law has been dropped twice by the Constitutional Court, as well as received remarks from the Venice Commission.
“I am here to present the PDK's positions regarding the Law on Verification and Confiscating Unjustable Riches, this is a significant law for Kosovo's justice system and for human rights and freedoms, so addressing issues should be done with extraordinary care. The court has dropped two drafts, one in the law's content, and the other in terms of the procedure followed, and we have had two Venice Commission recommendations that have also found significant remarks to improve this 34x1>.
A Special Concern of The PDK is a lack of public consultation, which according to Gruda is a necessary standard for sensitive laws, broadcasts Klonkosova. tv
The PDK's “decisions, for this law, we are not in principle against the law, the first, the law so far has not been done well and has been brought down to the Constitutional Court, for this law there has been no public consultation, should be put in public consultation. It is bad because such a sensitive law had to be subjected to debate by experts. Public consultation is standard that the Constitutional Court demands, it has been a concession that should not happen. Let's open public consultation, address the remarks, and bring you to the Assembly for approval. ”
He announced that the PDK would abstain from voting today to give the opportunity for the law to be improved before second reading, underlining that if the remarks do not improve, this party-like law cannot vote, Kankosova, broadcasts Periscope
The second “, the Constitutional Court, has made remarks about the law, said everything must be done by law, since it affects human rights and freedoms. It's still been left with some sublegal acts... A technical issue, the Law has the name “Law for verifying and confiscating unwarranted property”, the title is not appropriate for the contents of the Law, the Bureau does not seize wealth, so the word can be “confisifies”. The title of the law does not reflect the content of the law.
The PDK will abstain from giving me a chance that between two readings improved the law and second reading with the right consent, if the remarks are not addressed we cannot pass this 34x0> law, Gruda concluded.
