This is an “amicus curiae” for the Constitutional Court of Albania, and,
as such, it doesn’t aim to give a final decision about the
constitutionality of some laws, but its only purpose is to provide the
Constitutional Court of Albania with some materials regarding their
compatibility with European standards.
The Constitutional Court addressed four questions to the Venice Commission and if the participation of Constitutional Court judges, who are also subject to the Vetting procedure, is a conflict of interest.
The Venice Commission underlines that all Constitutional judges will be subject of the Vetting Laws, that’s why the law affects all of them. But disqualifying all of them would make it impossible to offer a legal review of the legislation, and cause a lack of justice. The Constitutional Court should see this as an extraordinary situation.
As for the involvement of institutions considered as under government control in the vetting process of judges, such as the Directory of Qualified Information and the High Inspectorate of Declaration and Audit of Assets, Venice say in they analyze that the information gathered by these institutions will be vetted by the Chamber of Appeal, which has two characteristics of a legal body. Based on this, the Vetting Law system doesn’t seem to intervene with the judicial powers.
As for the question if it is against the human rights convention to not allow judges and prosecutors to appeal the vetting decisions, Venice says that the answer to this question depends on the qualification of the Appeal Chamber, and that it can be considered as a specialized jurisdiction which guarantees the rights of persons affected by the vetting.
The Venice Commission states that the vetting aims to verify possible contacts with the organized crime, and as such it is completely according Article 8.2 of the European Right of Human Rights, which allows such actions for the sake of national or public safety, for preventing crimes or protecting the human rights and freedoms of others.
The Venice Commission says that vetting the past cannot be seen as an unjustified intervention in the private life of judges and prosectors, and it doesn’t violate article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights.
Top Channel
