Rusmali in the Court of Appeal: In the case of Veliaj's dismissal, there is no serious violation of the Constitution, but a lack of appearance for duty

2025-10-31 14:30:00, Aktualitet CNA

Rusmali in the Court of Appeal: In the case of Veliaj's dismissal, there is

The President's representative, Ilir Rusmali, stated in the Constitutional Court that the absence of an elected official in the institution is not a serious violation of the Constitution, but a lack of appearance at work.

Rusmali emphasized that the Constitutional Court itself has stated that it only examines serious violations of the Constitution, which in this case, according to Rusmali, does not constitute one.

"You specifically said this when you tried in 2017 the mayor of Kavaja, who was dismissed not by the Council of Ministers and not based on Article 115, but was dismissed for the purpose of the decriminalization law, and you said that he is only brought to the Constitutional Court for serious violations of the Constitution and the law.

"If there is no serious violation of the Constitution and the law, forgive us, but you have to go to the administrative one, this was your decision. Even though the cause is different, the situation is the same regarding the issue of your competence," said Rusmali.

Excerpt from Rusmajli's statement.

That Article 115 of the Constitution is not an article that determines the degree of the dismissal of the mayor has been said by the Constitutional Court, not us. Article 115 of the Constitution is an article that determines special guarantees in the case when the mayor or the Municipal Council are politically attacked in their existence. This is not the case. We cannot enter into the foundation of the issue, we cannot enter into the discussion, whether the letter c stands or not and if it stands, how much it stands, is not our issue, we cannot discuss this matter, we go beyond our legitimacy, but if the letter “c” is different from the letter “a” of Article 62, this means that Article 115 of the Constitution has no relevance to the case. It cannot have any relevance to the case.

Today the researcher told us they are actually the same thing.

Absence from work of an elected institution is not a serious violation of the Constitution, it is failure to appear for duty, but not a serious violation, just as a final sentence letter b cannot be called a serious violation of the Constitution. A sentence with a final decision is a technical reason, it is an act of the courts of the country which, at the moment the final decision is made, become in themselves a reason for dismissal, not the event that occurred or the reason why the person was sentenced, but the very fact of the final decision is a reason for dismissal. These are not violations of the Constitution. The applicant interprets this to you by saying that in fact they are derivatives of the same logic that there is only one reason for dismissal, as is Article 115.

This cannot be true. In previous cases you have said that it is not true. You specifically said this when you judged in 2017 the mayor of Kavaja, who was dismissed not by the Council of Ministers and not based on Article 115, but was dismissed for the purpose of the decriminalization law, and you said that the Constitutional Court is only called upon for serious violations of the Constitution and the law.

If there is no serious violation of the Constitution and the law, forgive us, but you have to go to the administrative court, this was your decision. Even though the cause is different, the situation is the same regarding the issue of your competence.

If the Constitutional Court does not have jurisdiction due to a degree determined in the decriminalization law, it does not have jurisdiction for the reason determined in letters b and c of Article 62 either.

You will make a decision that you deem reasonable, but when you consider this matter, perhaps there is room to discuss something that is important for the functioning of this state, of the highest state institutions, and of the mechanism that is in force today.

The President of the Republic, when he made his decision, has dutifully respected the Constitution, jurisprudence, the legal framework, has respected your authority to suspend the review, has not prejudiced you. He has said how long the positions are contradictory, he openly says that Article 115 does not apply, the Constitution says that I call myself competent, it is my case and cancels the basic act.

The President left the process until the legal deadline to give them the opportunity to intervene. The press office of the CC intervened with a cryptic statement, the case has been registered. It said nothing and did not enlighten anyone. The President was willing to submit to a decision of the CC. Instead of suspending the act for which you are constitutionally competent, you withdraw another act for which you are not competent because you want to avoid the consequences that the act for which we are called will bring. The elections are scheduled because we have an act of dismissal that is not to the liking of the president. If the act of dismissal is suspended, the president's action is also suspended./ CNA