By Desada Metaj
In recent days, the name of Naureda Llagami has also been at the center of the debate on constitutionality and the Constitutional Court. The latter was one of the candidates for member of the Constitutional Court. In the assessment that the KED made of the candidates, Ms. Llagami resulted with second points (after the first ranked candidate Asim Vokshi). After the end of the voting in the High Court, Ms. Llagami did not result in the winner with votes. According to the law, in these cases, the candidate who received the highest points in the assessment is declared the winner (candidate Asim Vokshi). For this reason, days later she also started claiming that the votes were falsified.
An important media outlet came to her aid, which not long ago had organized a studio interview about Ms. Llagami's "plight." Which should not be such a personal plight, considering the delicate situation in which the Constitutional Court finds itself and the decisions that are expected from it.
Naureda Llagami, in fact, took her claims of falsified votes to the Administrative Court as a lawsuit. She also requested the suspension of the procedure for the decreeing of the winning candidate Asim Vokshi as a member of the CC. This seems to be another reason why the President delayed the decreeing of Mr. Vokshi, i.e. to give the Administrative Court time to review Llagami's lawsuit. However, the administrative court responded correctly to Ms. Llagami's lawsuit, concluding that this matter is outside the court's jurisdiction. The court also recognized the plaintiff Llagami's right to address this matter to the College of the Supreme Court within five days. This deadline has not expired because it expires on October 19, 2025 (Monday of next week).
In her decision, Judge Semiramis Hoxholli underlines, among other things, that:
“In other words, a court of ordinary jurisdiction such as the Tirana Administrative Court of First Instance would be placed above the High Court and even, indirectly, above the Constitutional Court. In addition to compromising the institutional integrity of the High Court, the administrative court would blatantly violate the principle of separation of powers by erasing the boundaries between the law and the “mother” of laws, the Constitution. This merging of boundaries would not only be unconstitutional, but also the first case of deviation from the European model of constitutional control.”
It is also based on a Supreme Court decision as a reference, which states that:
“The Administrative Court of Appeal has failed in its constitutional and legal duty to make a final decision regarding these lawsuits. The Panel considers that this decision should be made by the Supreme Court in this trial. The Panel considers that the absolute causes of termination of the trial, such as jurisdiction, inadmissibility or procedurality, are considered by the court primarily at every stage and level of the trial.”
Finally, the Administrative Court of First Instance has ruled to remove the case from judicial jurisdiction and declares the request for security of claim of the applicant Ms. Naureda Llagami as inadmissible for this reason, in accordance with Article 9 of Law No. 49/2012 and Article 59 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
As stated above, Ms. Llagami has the right to appeal this decision within days to the High Court. The deadline for this appeal is October 19 (the decision is dated October 13).
But Mrs. Llagami, I hope not because of ignorance, does not file an appeal against this decision in the Supreme Court if she does not agree with it. Nor does she expect the case that she herself initiated to be closed by waiting for the court's decision to become final (on October 19). Nor has she made any act of renunciation of the trial that she initiated in the administrative court. But with unusual haste she takes the request to the Constitutional Court. A typical behavior of a "forum shopping" that is known in doctrine as abusive procedural behavior, that is, to find not the authority/court that the law authorizes, but another authority/court that may be more favorable to Mrs. Llagami.
Of course it is not out of ignorance. Ms. Llagami has been at the head of the KLGJ for 5 years. For this reason, she knows the ins and outs of judicial procedures in detail. She is not just ignorant or incompetent. Apparently, another motive has pushed her into this “forum shopping”, into this skipping of links and procedures, which in the final analysis have the aim of keeping the KLG in instability.
By abandoning the first-instance court in the middle of the process and jumping straight to the top of the system, i.e. sending the lawsuit to the Constitutional Court, she has avoided the steps and flow of administrative and then judicial appeal procedures that should begin with the Supreme Court judges themselves. It seems that she has made this jump with the sole intention of causing as much chaos as possible in the stability of the Constitutional Court, which in recent times has had to make important decisions on issues that directly affect the interests of the Prime Minister or even the opposition.
Under these conditions, by extralegally putting the Constitutional Court under pressure, or at least contributing together with other actors to ensure that this court remains truncated (i.e. not with the full membership of 9 members), Naureda Llagami seems to be interested in dragging out the process that also holds hostage the oath before the president of Asim Vokshi, who is officially the new member of the CC. And at this point, the "buying" of time by the President of the Republic by not decreeing, without any reason, Asim Vokshi as a member of the CC also makes sense. The irony of fate even goes beyond that. If the Constitutional Court accepts the review of Naureda Llagami's case, a judicial conflict will be created and Bajram Begaj will not decree the member of the CC, Asim Vokshi, until the end of the trial. The Constitutional Court would remain with only 8 members for a long time to come. Meanwhile, the judge who must vacate Asim Vokshi's chair is precisely Holta Zace, the linchpin of the destabilization of the GJK for 1 and a half years. And it doesn't end here, because most likely, Holta Zace will be part of the trial of Naureda Llagami's case, or in other words, the trial of keeping her chair!
This is the next dirty game being played at the expense of the Constitution and the Constitutional Court after the one about the length of mandates!
Now that the situation is clear and unmasked, it is in the honor of the Court of Justice not to fall into the game of Mrs. Llagami (and not only) to consider an illegal request and in this case create a new crisis of its own from which it would hardly emerge, while delicate decision-making awaits it!
Apparently, with the style in which Naureda Llagami communicated with Klotilda Bushka to find her husband a seat in SPAK, this time she will "procure" herself a seat in the Constitutional Court in the same way.
