Supreme Court law
The Parliamentary Commission of Laws did not start the reviewing of the
draft law for the Supreme Court. The Socialists asked for more time to
study it, a series of documents for the consultations about this
draft-law with Euralius and a hearing session with the Supreme Court
But “time” was what opened and closed the debate at the Commission of Laws, after the Democrats reminded that this is a draft-law that is related with the functionality of the Administrative Court on January and with the Status decision in October, considering it as a justification for postponing the discussion to the next session.
But the Socialists considered this interpretation as malicious.
Ilir Rusmali, chairman of the Commission of laws, declared that the Albanians couldn’t wait for the Socialists’ right moment. While Fatmir Xhafaj, vice chairman of the commission, declared that postponing the deadline didn’t mean not wanting integration and that only a malicious mind would think that.
The 13 amends that were agreed by the government and the European Union “Euralius” mission brings three novelties. Some of the articles are directly related with the Administrative Court and add two members to the Supreme Court.
The rest affects the procedure for electing the Supreme Court members, providing that before decreeing the Supreme Court members, the President must consult with the Parliament first. This has caused strong debates recently, especially during Topi’s presidency.
But besides the time element, the Socialists seem to have reserves for its content, since the amends do not come as completions for the Administrative Court, but as a reform of the Supreme Court, which the government accepted as such.
Rusmali declared that this law must pass before the end of this Parliamentary Session, otherwise it might be postponed again in December.
Xhafaj replied that they are not reforming two or three amends of the Administrative College, but a Supreme Court reform, and that cannot do it that fast.
The Commission of laws will summon the Supreme Court President this Wednesday but it is not certain yet.
The Supreme Court President has been against the draft-law, although the Minister of Justice says that few requests have not been taken in consideration in the final draft.
This draft-law cannot pass without consensus between the parties, since it requires 35 of the MPs’ votes.