The Appeal Chamber held on 02.04.2025, at 13:00, the public hearing of case (JR) 41/2024, dated 21.10.2024, pertaining to the appeal of the Public Commissioner against decision no. 762, dated 15.05.2024, of the Independent Qualification Commission, related to the assessee Afrim Shehu.

The presiding judge announced that Article 179/b, paragraph 8 of the Constitution of the Republic of Albania and Article 199 of the Civil Procedure Code have set forth the transfer of powers from the Public Commissioner to the Head of the Special Prosecution Office, represented in this trial upon special authorization by the prosecutor of the Special Prosecution Office, Mr. Klodian Braho, present at the hearing.

The legal representative of the assessee considered Mr. Braho’s authorization to be well-founded and the trial panel legitimized his presence at this hearing.

Mr. Braho stated that he had waived the appeal grounds related to the proficiency assessment criterion and continued with the submission of the appeal grounds related to the asset assessment criterion. He held that the assessee had failed to prove the legitimacy of the source of creation of his assets nor prove the opposite of the burden of proof for this criterion. The representative of the Special Prosecution Office requested the amendment of the IQC decision no. 762, dated 15.05.2024, and the dismissal from office of the assessee Afrim Shehu.

The assessee and his legal representative disputed the appeal grounds and filed documents in support of their claims, which they requested the trial panel to accept them as evidence. With regard to this request, Mr. Klodian Braho maintained that he found no formal impediments to the administration of the documents.

The presiding judge of the trial panel requested the parties to take a position regarding three public complaints, two of which had been forwarded to the Public Commissioners Institution before the submission of the appeal against the decision subject to consideration, and no appeal grounds had been raised in their regard. These complaints were subsequently forwarded to the Chamber by the Public Commissioners Institution. The representative of the Special Prosecution Office stated that none of them contained grounds for further investigation. The assessee provided explanations and submitted new documents regarding the issues raised in the complaints.

After being consulted, the trial panel decided to open the judicial investigation of the case and accept as evidence all the documents filed by the assessee, except for the financial analysis of the years 2009 - 2016, which is already part of the case file.

The trial panel decided not to open an investigation on the public complaints, and once the parties stated that they had no procedural requests, decided to close the judicial investigation and invited them to submit their final conclusions.

Given that the representative of the Special Prosecution Office requested time to prepare the final conclusions, it was decided to postpone the hearing to 22.04.2025, at 11:30.

The public hearing shall take place at the premises of the Appeal Chamber, at Boulevard “Dëshmorët e Kombit”, no. 3, Tirana.

The Appeal Chamber held on 07.04.2025, at 10:00, the public hearing of case (JR) 24/2024, dated 01.07.2024, pertaining to the appeal of the Public Commissioner against decision no. 744, dated 19.03.2024 of the Independent Qualification Commission, related to the assessee Artan Hajredinaj.

The presiding judge announced that Article 179/b, paragraph 8 of the Constitution of the Republic of Albania and Article 199 of the Civil Procedure Code have set forth the transfer of powers from the Public Commissioner to the Head of the Special Prosecution Office, who has delegated his representation in this proceedings to the prosecutor of the Special Prosecution Office, Mr. Klodian Braho, present at the hearing.

During the submission of the appeal grounds related to the asset and proficiency assessment criteria, the representative of the Special Prosecution Office stated that he shares a different position from the Independent Qualification Commission that confirmed in office the assessee Artan Hajredinaj. Referring to the seven public complaints, Mr. Braho requested the Chamber to take into consideration the circumstances described therein and the shortcomings identified in the addressing of the cases in the proficiency assessment of assessee. The representative of the Special Prosecution Office, while standing by the appeal grounds, requested the amendment of decision no. 744, dated 19.03.2024 of the Independent Qualification Commission and the dismissal from office of the assessee.

During the submission of the objections, the legal representative of the assessee held that there is a contradictory position regarding the appeal: the Head of the Special Prosecution Office has raised grounds for all three criteria, but refers only to two of them, the asset and the proficiency assessment. With regard to the asset assessment criterion, the legal representative maintained that the reference should be the Vetting declaration and not the periodic ones, adding as well that the appeal lacks a negative balance for each asset. The legal representative provided detailed explanations for each appeal ground and in support of her claims, lodged several documents, which she requested the trial panel to accept them as evidence.

The presiding judge announced that on March 25, 2025, the Chamber has received a new complaint, which had been forwarded to the parties. In this regard, the representative of the Special Prosecution Office stated that it regards a case still under consideration by the assessee and therefore has no impact on his vetting process. In this context, the assessee submitted his position and several accompanying documents in writing, requesting that they be admitted as evidence.

With regard to the documents, Mr. Klodian Braho stated that from a formal point of view, there is no legal impediment to their administration, whereas with respect to the content, he shall make a statement with their regard during the final conclusions of the case.

After being consulted, the trial panel decided to accept as evidence all the documents filed by the assessee, except for one document already part of the case file forwarded by the Independent Qualification Commission. These documents will also be forwarded to the representative of the Special Prosecution Office.

The trial panel, taking into account the position of Mr. Braho, decided not to investigate the complaint dated March 25, 2025, as it fails to meet the legal criteria for further investigation. Also, for this reason, it was decided not to investigate further a complaint forwarded by a complainant with the initials B.S.

Once the parties stated that they had no other procedural requests, the trial panel decided to close the judicial investigation and invited the parties to submit their final conclusions. Given that the representative of the Special Prosecution Office requested a reasonable time for their preparation, it was decided to postpone the hearing to 28.04.2025, at 14:00.

The public hearing shall take place at the premises of the Appeal Chamber, at Boulevard “Dëshmorët e Kombit”, no. 3, Tirana.

The Appeal Chamber held on 09.04.2025, at 10:00, the public hearing of case (JR) 25/2024, dated 03.07.2024, pertaining to the appeal of the Public Commissioner against decision no. 760, dated 26.04.2024 of the Independent Qualification Commission, related to the assessee Ardiana Bera.

The presiding judge announced that Article 179/b, paragraph 8 of the Constitution of the Republic of Albania and Article 199 of the Civil Procedure Code have set forth the transfer of powers from the Public Commissioner to the Head of the Special Prosecution Office, represented in this case upon special authorization by the prosecutor of the Special Prosecution Office, Mr. Adnan Xholi, present at the hearing.

During the submission of the appeal grounds for the asset and proficiency assessment criteria, the representative of the Special Prosecution Office stated that he shares an opposite opinion with the Independent Qualification Commission that has confirmed in office the assessee. He considered that the assessee fails to prove the legitimacy of the sources of creation of the assets, and requested the Chamber to take into consideration in the overall evaluation of the case the way in which the assessee handled a case during the exercise of his office, which the Independent Qualification Commission did not consider during the administrative process, as it considered the case still pending. Mr. Xholi requested the Chamber that, after taking into consideration the appeal grounds, decides the amendment of decision no. 760, dated 26.4.2024, of the Independent Qualification Commission and the dismissal from office of the assessee Ardiana Bera.

The legal representative and the assessee objected to the appeal grounds and in support of their claims submitted additional documents, which they requested the trial panel to accept them as evidence. With respect to the proficiency assessment, the assessee stated that the request of the representative of the Special Prosecution Office should not be part of the examination of the case, since there is no inherent appeal ground in this context. Nevertheless, the assessee, Ms. Bera, provided explanations regarding her position on the judicial case.

The presiding judge announced that there are several complaints filed with the Chamber, which had been forwarded to the parties. The representative of the Special Prosecution Office considered that these complaints contain no grounds for further investigation. The assessee, being in agreement with the aforementioned position, submitted additional evidence to prove the contrary of the claims raised in these complaints.

Subsequently, to the purpose of the examination of the case, the representative of the Special Prosecution Office and the assessee responded to several questions of the rapporteur of the case.

After being consulted, the trial panel decided:

- to accept as evidence the information and its accompanying document issued by the construction company of the apartment owned by the assessee;

- to not accept as evidence the documentation of the income of the brother of the assessee in UK, as it is not in the form required by law;

- to not investigate further the complaints, as they fail to meet the criteria of Article 53 of Law 84/2016 “On the transitional re-evaluation of judges and prosecutors in the Republic of Albania”, after hearing as well the position of the representative of the Special Prosecution Office with their regard.

Given that the parties had no procedural requests, the trial panel decided to close the judicial investigation and invited the parties to submit their final conclusions at the next hearing, which will be held on 05.05.2025, at 12:30.

The public hearing shall take place at the premises of the Appeal Chamber, at Boulevard “Dëshmorët e Kombit”, no. 3, Tirana.

Kolegji i Posaçëm i Apelimit zhvilloi më datë 09.04.2025, ora 10:00, seancën gjyqësore publike të çështjes (JR) 25/2024, datë 03.07.2024, që i përket ankimit të Komisionerit Publik kundër vendimit të Komisionit të Pavarur të Kualifikimit, nr. 760, datë 26.04.2024, që lidhet me subjektin e rivlerësimit Ardiana Bera.

Kryesuesja e trupit gjykues bëri me dije se neni 179/b, pika 8 e Kushtetutës së Republikës së Shqipërisë dhe neni 199 i Kodit të Procedurës Civile ka përcaktuar kalimin e kompetencave nga Komisioneri Publik tek Drejtuesi i Prokurorisë së Posaçme, i përfaqësuar në këtë çështje me autorizim të veçantë nga prokurori i Prokurorisë së Posaçme z. Adnan Xholi, i pranishëm në seancë.

Gjatë paraqitjes së shkaqeve të ankimit për kriterin e vlerësimit të pasurisë dhe atë të aftësive profesionale, përfaqësuesi i Prokurorisës së Posaçme deklaroi se ndan mendim të kundërt me Komisionin e Pavarur të Kualifikimit që ka konfirmuar në detyrë subjektin e rivlerësimit. Ai çmoi se subjekti i rivlerësimit nuk arrin të provojë ligjshmërinë e burimeve të krijimit të pasurisë, ndërsa i kërkoi Kolegjit që të marrë në konsideratë në vlerësimin tërësor të çështjes mënyrën e trajtimit të një çështjeje nga subjekti i rivlerësimit gjatë ushtrimit të detyrës, të cilën, Komisioni i Pavarur i Kualifikimit nuk e ka konsideruar gjatë procesit administrativ, pasi e ka konsideruar çështje ende nën shqyrtim. Z. Xholi i kërkoi Kolegjit, që pasi të marrë në konsideratë shkaqet e ankimit, të vendosë ndryshimin e vendimit nr. 760, datë 26.4.2024, të Komisionit të Pavarur të Kualifikimit dhe shkarkimin nga detyra të subjektit të rivlerësimit Ardiana Bera.

Përfaqësuesja ligjore dhe vetë subjekti i rivlerësimisht kundërshtuan shkaqet e ankimit dhe në mbështetje të pretendimeve të tyre depozituan akte shtesë, që kërkuan të pranohen si provë nga trupi gjykues. Lidhur me kriterin e vlerësimit të aftësive profesionale, subjekti i rivlerësimit deklaroi se kërkesa e përfaqësuesit të Prokurorisë së Posaçme nuk duhet të bëhet pjesë e shqyrtimit të çështjes, pasi nuk ekziston një shkak ankimi i qenësishëm në këtë kuadër. Megjithatë, subjekti i rivlerësimit, znj. Bera, dha shpjegimet e saj rreth qëndrimit mbi çështjen gjyqësore.

Kryesuesja e seancës gjyqësore bëri me dije se në Kolegj janë depozituar disa denoncime, të cilat u janë përcjellë palëve. Përfaqësuesi i Prokurorisë së Posaçme çmoi se këto denoncime nuk përmbajnë shkaqe për hetime të mëtejshme. Subjekti i rivlerësimit, duke shprehur dakordësinë me qëndrimin e sipërcituar, dorëzoi prova shtesë për të vërtetuar të kundërtën e pretendimeve të ngritura në këto denoncime.

Në vijim, përfaqësuesi i Prokurorisë së Posaçme dhe subjekti i rivlerësimit iu përgjigjën disa pyetjeve të relatores së çështjes në funksion të shqyrtimit të çështjes.

Pasi u konsultua, trupi gjykues vendosi:

të pranojë të cilësinë e provës informacionin dhe aktin shoqërues të tij të lëshuar nga shoqëria ndërtuese e apartamentit në pronësi të subjektit të rivlerësimit;

të mos pranojë si provë dokumentacionin e të ardhurave të vëllait të subjektit të rivlerësimit në Angli, pasi nuk është në formën e kërkuar nga ligji;

Të mos hetojë më tej për denoncimet, pasi nuk plotësojnë kriteret e nenit 53 të ligjit 84/2016 “Për rivlerësimin kalimtar të gjyqtarëve dhe prokurorëve në Republikën e Shqipërisë”, pasi dëgjoi edhe qëndrimin e përfaqësuesit të Prokurorisë së Posaçme lidhur me to.

Pasi palët nuk kishin kërkesa procedurale, trupi gjykues vendosi mbylljen e hetimit gjyqësor dhe i ftoi palët në paraqitjen e konkluzioneve përfundimtare në seancën e ardhshme, që do të zhvillohet më datë 05.05.2025, ora 12:30.

Seanca publike do të zhvillohet në ambientet e Kolegjit të Posaçëm të Apelimit, në adresën: Bulevardi “Dëshmorët e Kombit”, nr. 3, Tiranë.

Ditën e hënë, më datë 26.05.2025, ora 10:00, do të gjykohet në dhomë këshillimi çështja (JR) nr. 36/2023, datë 26.07.2023, që i përket ankimit të subjektit të rivlerësimit Hyrjet Lamaj kundër vendimit të Komisionit të Pavarur të Kualifikimit nr. 668, datë 26.05.2023.

Trupi gjykues për gjykimin e kësaj çështjeje përbëhet nga gjyqtarët:

Kryesuese: Albana Shtylla

Relatore: Natasha Mulaj

Anëtarë: Mimoza Tasi, Rezarta Schuetz, Sokol Çomo

Seanca në dhomë këshillimi do të zhvillohet në ambientet e Kolegjit të Posaçëm të Apelimit, në adresën: Bulevardi “Dëshmorët e Kombit”, nr. 3, Tiranë.

Ditën e martë, më datë 03.06.2025, ora 10:00, do të gjykohet në seancë publike çështja (JR) nr. 49/2023, datë 27.10.2023, që i përket ankimit të Komisionerit Publik kundër vendimit të Komisionit të Pavarur të Kualifikimit nr. 696, datë 11.09.2023, që lidhet me subjektin e rivlerësimit Marsida Frashëri.

Trupi gjykues për gjykimin e kësaj çështjeje përbëhet nga gjyqtarët:

Kryesuese: Rezarta Schuetz

Relatore: Natasha Mulaj

Anëtarë: Ina Rama, Mimoza Tasi, Sokol Çomo

Seanca publike do të zhvillohet në ambientet e Kolegjit të Posaçëm të Apelimit, në adresën: Bulevardi “Dëshmorët e Kombit”, nr. 3, Tiranë.

On Tuesday, 03.06.2025, at 10:00, the Appeal Chamber shall consider in a public hearing case (JR) no. 49/2023, dated 27.10.2023, pertaining to the appeal of the Public Commissioner against decision no. 696, dated 11.09.2023 of the Independent Qualification Commission, related to the assessee Marsida Frashëri.

The trial panel of this case shall consist of the following judges:

Presiding: Rezarta Schuetz

Rapporteur: Natasha Mulaj

Members: Ina Rama, Mimoza Tasi, Sokol Çomo

The public hearing shall take place at the premises of the Appeal Chamber, at Boulevard “Dëshmorët e Kombit”, no. 3, Tirana.