By Indrit Vokshi
Erion Veliaj was dismissed based on Article 62 of the Law on Local Government. Not on Article 115 of the Constitution, which these fiery oppositionists are quoting to convince us that they have violated that article and the Constitution.
I don't know why they cite Article 115 when neither the City Council nor the Government have used Article 115 and have not dismissed Veliaj based on Article 115!
Article 62 states: "The Mayor is dismissed by decision of the Council of Ministers, when:.."He is proposed by the relevant municipal council for failure to appear for duty for an uninterrupted period of 3 months."
The Government's decision dismissing Veliaj states: "In support of Article 100 of the Constitution and point c) of Article 62 of the Law on Local Government." That is, Article 100, which determines the competence of the CM to issue acts, and not Article 115.
Article 115 in a chronological and substantive reading relates to cases when the Council of Ministers dismisses a mayor <> for violating the law. Since powers are separated not only horizontally (parliament-government-judiciary) but are also separated vertically (central power-local power), the Constitution, in order to prevent the abuse of this power by the Council of Ministers and to prevent this power from being used abusively against mayors, has provided that the dismissal is suspended until it is reviewed by the Constitutional Court. This applies only to dismissal by the Council of Ministers, and this is provided for in order to preserve the separation of central power-local power.
In the case of Veliaj, we are not faced with Article 115, because Erion Veliaj was not dismissed by the government using Article 115; Erion Veliaj was dismissed by the Tirana Municipal Council using Article 62 of the Law on Local Government, and Article 62 requires that the dismissal by the Municipal Council be sent to the Government. That is, the Veliaj issue is a matter that has been resolved at the local level, at the municipal level, according to the Law on Local Government, and is not a clash between the central government and the local government.
These ardent opponents have taken the weight by attacking the President, saying that the President should not have decreed elections. But why shouldn't he have? Once again: we are not before Article 115, the article that obliges the President not to declare elections. No, the President is a captain, no, he is a sergeant! Edi Rama may be both a captain and a sergeant, we do not exclude this, but this is not relevant to the case in question. In this case, he has not violated the Constitution.
Edi Rama wanted to dismiss Erion Veliaj, that is clear. But Edi Rama has a legal advisor who has advised him well, telling him that in order not to overthrow the Constitution and not to block the elections under Article 115, he should not use Article 115, but convince the members of the Municipal Council to dismiss them and, in this case, there is no violation of the Constitution, nor is there a blocking of the election decree.
Edi Rama found it easier to dismiss Veliaj with Article 115, he did it simply by government decision, he didn't need to order the members of the Municipal Council to dismiss them. But he ordered them for this purpose.
Interesting that everyone cites an article, article 115, when that article has not been used anywhere and has no connection to this issue. Why are they defending Veliaj? Go and find out. They know.
