Tomorrow, the Constitutional Court is expected to make a key decision for Albanian justice, politics, and institutions.
If today was an important moment for developments in SPAK, what is expected from the Constitutional Court is even more important for developments and the effects of justice in Albanian politics and institutions. Tomorrow, the Constitutional Court will judge the request raised by the Prime Minister, regarding the so-called "Balluku case".
The assembly of judges (of 8 members, because the 9th is vacant) will meet to consider whether the request submitted by Prime Minister Rama is capable of investing the Constitutional Court for a trial on the merits, regarding what he has requested. So, what should have been decided by the panel of 3 members, will now be considered by the entire body of judges.
The Law on the Constitutional Court, in its Article 31, clearly provides for the issues that are examined at this stage. Thus, tomorrow the members of the Court will examine the following points:
1. whether the claims presented in the application fall within the competence of the Constitutional Court;
2. whether the application was not submitted by the subject that is legitimized;
3. whether the application was submitted by an authorized person;
4. whether it is proven that the application was submitted within the legal deadline;
5. whether the applicant has exhausted effective legal remedies before addressing the Constitutional Court, or whether the legislation in force provides for effective remedies available;
6. whether the claims presented in the application are the subject of a previous decision of the Constitutional Court, or if the restoration of the violated right is not possible;
7. whether the application is manifestly unfounded.
If the meeting of judges reaches the conclusion that even one of these 7 requirements is not met, then the request is rejected and the case is closed there, without any further development.
We remind you that the Prime Minister, in addition to requesting the "resolution of the conflict of competences" as the main request, has also presented two other requests. One is the one that has to do with the "revocation of the decision of the GJKKO" that has decided the suspension of the Deputy Prime Minister and the minister, and the third request is the "interpretation of Article 103/3 of the Constitution".
On the other hand, the Prime Minister has requested, also as a precautionary measure, that the aforementioned decision of the GJKKO (which decided the suspension from office) be suspended until the court makes a final decision on the merits. This is a preliminary request, which also has the legal possibility of being reviewed tomorrow. It is not unknown for the court to choose the option of making such decisions also in the merits session, always with the condition that, if the case is accepted for review, such a decision is made the next day.
As is known, the Constitutional Court operates with 8 members out of a total of 9. This means that, theoretically, there could also be a 4:4 vote split. In these cases, the law itself provides that the request is considered accepted; that is, the issue of “resolving the conflict of competences” is forwarded to the plenary session, which will examine it on the merits. On the other hand, the law provides that the preliminary request — that is, the one for the suspension of the decision of the Constitutional Court — necessarily and in any case requires no less than 5 votes to be considered accepted; otherwise, it is considered rejected.
What is striking at first glance is the fact that the Prime Minister has requested the suspension of the GJKKO decision with a preliminary ruling until the conclusion of the case, but at the same time, as we mentioned above, he has also requested the annulment of this decision. So, in essence, with the preliminary ruling he has requested essentially the same thing that he requested in the main proceedings.
The Constitutional Court has shown in its past that, although it has taken precautionary measures to suspend an act, it has always exercised caution so that the preliminary decision does not prejudice the way it will express itself on the decision on the merits. Moreover, it is the first case in the history of this court to express itself on the fate of a judicial decision, when the appeal against this decision has not come through the normal path — that is, after the appeal process in the Appeal of the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court has been exhausted.
Meanwhile, it is already known that the interested party herself has pursued the normal appeal in the Appeal of the Constitutional Court, which is expected to be judged in the coming days. This fact itself creates a clear dualism between the judicial system on the one hand and the Constitutional Court on the other, when in fact the Constitutional Court, on issues related to the fate of a judicial decision, always speaks and only after the avenues of appeal in the judicial system have been exhausted.
However, public interest, and not only for tomorrow's issue, is of paramount importance for legal and political developments in Albania.
