Gjykata e Lart\u00eb ka reaguar ashp\u00ebr ndaj m\u00ebnyr\u00ebs se si Komisioni p\u00ebr \u00c7\u00ebshtjet Ligjore ka zhvilluar procedur\u00ebn parlamentare p\u00ebr projektligjin q\u00eb prek pagat, statusin dhe garancit\u00eb kushtetuese t\u00eb magjistrat\u00ebve.<\/p>\n
N\u00eb nj\u00eb deklarat\u00eb, Gjykata e cil\u00ebson procesin si shp\u00ebrfillje t\u00eb konsultimit institucional dhe k\u00ebrkon q\u00eb projektligji t\u00eb mos kaloj\u00eb p\u00ebr votim n\u00eb seanc\u00ebn plenare t\u00eb 17 shtatorit.<\/p>\n
Gjykata e Lart\u00eb shprehet se p\u00ebrfaq\u00ebsuesit e gjyq\u00ebsorit jan\u00eb njoftuar m\u00eb pak se dy or\u00eb p\u00ebrpara p\u00ebr t\u2019u paraqitur n\u00eb Komisionin p\u00ebr \u00c7\u00ebshtjet Ligjore, por pavar\u00ebsisht afatit t\u00eb shkurt\u00ebr kan\u00eb marr\u00eb pjes\u00eb n\u00eb konsultim.<\/p>\n
Sipas Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb, p\u00ebrfaq\u00ebsuesve t\u00eb gjyq\u00ebsorit nuk iu vun\u00eb n\u00eb dispozicion t\u00eb gjitha amendamentet q\u00eb ndryshonin projektligjin, nd\u00ebrsa mungoi edhe informacioni i plot\u00eb mbi opinionin financiar t\u00eb Qeveris\u00eb.<\/p>\n
Gjykata argumenton se konsultimi institucional nuk mund t\u00eb jet\u00eb thjesht formal dhe se q\u00ebndrimet e paraqitura duhet t\u00eb shqyrtohen realisht p\u00ebrpara se nj\u00eb projektligj t\u00eb d\u00ebrgohet p\u00ebr votim.<\/p>\n
N\u00eb qend\u00ebr t\u00eb kund\u00ebrshtimeve jan\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtje q\u00eb lidhen me pag\u00ebn referuese t\u00eb magjistrat\u00ebve, koeficientin 0,38 t\u00eb pag\u00ebs s\u00eb Presidentit t\u00eb Republik\u00ebs, pagat e prapambetura, hierarkin\u00eb e pagave brenda sistemit gjyq\u00ebsor dhe zbatimin e vendimit nr. 15\/2026 t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs Kushtetuese.<\/p>\n
Gjykata e Lart\u00eb thekson se vendimet e Gjykat\u00ebs Kushtetuese nuk respektohen vet\u00ebm duke iu referuar numrit t\u00eb tyre, por duke zbatuar p\u00ebrmbajtjen dhe arsyetimin kushtetues q\u00eb ato p\u00ebrcaktojn\u00eb.<\/p>\n
N\u00eb deklarat\u00eb, Gjykata ngre gjithashtu shqet\u00ebsime p\u00ebr ndryshimet e reja t\u00eb b\u00ebra n\u00eb projektligj, duke argumentuar se ato e vendosin gjyq\u00ebsorin n\u00eb nj\u00eb pozit\u00eb m\u00eb t\u00eb pafavorshme. Sipas saj, mungesa e transparenc\u00ebs dhe e konsultimit real krijon pik\u00ebpyetje q\u00eb duhet t\u00eb sqarohen nga Komisioni.<\/p>\n
Gjykata e Lart\u00eb i k\u00ebrkon Kuvendit t\u00eb mos e kaloj\u00eb projektligjin n\u00eb form\u00ebn aktuale dhe k\u00ebrkon q\u00eb, p\u00ebrpara \u00e7do procedure t\u00eb m\u00ebtejshme, t\u00eb nd\u00ebrmerren disa hapa.<\/p>\n
Kuvendi duhet t\u00eb sqaroj\u00eb rregullsin\u00eb, koh\u00ebn dhe m\u00ebnyr\u00ebn e depozitimit dhe shqyrtimit t\u00eb amendamenteve, si dhe arsyen pse ato nuk iu b\u00ebn\u00eb t\u00eb njohura gjyq\u00ebsorit gjat\u00eb konsultimit.<\/p>\n
Gjithashtu, Gjykata k\u00ebrkon publikimin e mendimit t\u00eb K\u00ebshillit t\u00eb Ministrave mbi efektet financiare t\u00eb projektligjit, verifikimin e procedurave dhe afateve parlamentare, si dhe mund\u00ebsin\u00eb reale p\u00ebr gjyq\u00ebsorin q\u00eb t\u00eb shprehet mbi variantin e fundit t\u00eb projektligjit.<\/p>\n
N\u00eb fund, k\u00ebrkohet q\u00eb projektligji t\u00eb rivler\u00ebsohet n\u00eb t\u00ebr\u00ebsi n\u00eb raport me vendimin nr. 15\/2026 t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs Kushtetuese dhe q\u00ebndrimet e paraqitura nga gjyq\u00ebsori.<\/p>\n
\u201cGjyq\u00ebsori ka folur. Gjykata Kushtetuese ka vendosur. Tashm\u00eb p\u00ebrgjegj\u00ebsia \u00ebsht\u00eb e Kuvendit\u201d, thuhet n\u00eb deklarat\u00ebn e Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Lart\u00eb.<\/p>\n
Gjykata thekson se nuk k\u00ebrkon ep\u00ebrsi ndaj Kuvendit, por as n\u00ebnshtrim ndaj tij, duke n\u00ebnvizuar se ndarja e pushteteve p\u00ebrcakton kompetenca, kufij dhe kontroll kushtetues.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Gjykata e Lart\u00eb ka reaguar ashp\u00ebr ndaj m\u00ebnyr\u00ebs se si Komisioni p\u00ebr \u00c7\u00ebshtjet Ligjore ka zhvilluar procedur\u00ebn parlamentare p\u00ebr projektligjin q\u00eb prek pagat, statusin dhe garancit\u00eb kushtetuese t\u00eb magjistrat\u00ebve. N\u00eb nj\u00eb deklarat\u00eb, Gjykata e cil\u00ebson procesin si shp\u00ebrfillje t\u00eb konsultimit institucional dhe k\u00ebrkon q\u00eb projektligji t\u00eb mos kaloj\u00eb p\u00ebr votim n\u00eb seanc\u00ebn plenare t\u00eb 17 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":0,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-99883","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/zennihost.com\/test\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/99883","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/zennihost.com\/test\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/zennihost.com\/test\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zennihost.com\/test\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=99883"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/zennihost.com\/test\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/99883\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/zennihost.com\/test\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=99883"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zennihost.com\/test\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=99883"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zennihost.com\/test\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=99883"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}