{"id":309902,"date":"2023-01-13T13:56:47","date_gmt":"2023-01-13T12:56:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/zjarr.tv\/?p=309902"},"modified":"2023-01-13T13:56:47","modified_gmt":"2023-01-13T12:56:47","slug":"gjykata-e-apelit-fundos-grupin-alibeaj-bardhi-gjykata-jep-nioftimin-e-rendesishem-per-rrezimin-e-kerkeses-per","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/zjarr.tv\/sq\/gjykata-e-apelit-fundos-grupin-alibeaj-bardhi-gjykata-jep-nioftimin-e-rendesishem-per-rrezimin-e-kerkeses-per\/","title":{"rendered":"Gjykata e Apelit fundos grupin Alibeaj-Bardhi\/ Gjykata jep nioftimin e r\u00ebnd\u00ebsish\u00ebm p\u00ebr rr\u00ebzimin e k\u00ebrkes\u00ebs p\u00ebr\u2026"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n

Gjykata e Apelit ka rr\u00ebzuar dit\u00ebn e djeshme k\u00ebrkes\u00ebn e Grupit t\u00eb Partis\u00eb Demokratike t\u00eb p\u00ebrfaq\u00ebsuar nga Enkelejd Alibeaj, p\u00ebr shkarkimin e gjyqtares Irida Kacerja si relatore e \u00e7\u00ebshtjes gjyq\u00ebsore p\u00ebr njohjen e statutit t\u00eb PD-s\u00eb.<\/p>\n

<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n

Apeli ka njoftuar gjithashtu se PD-ja \u00ebsht\u00eb gjobitur me vler\u00ebn 1 mln lek\u00eb n\u00eb lidhje me k\u00ebt\u00eb situat\u00eb.
\nGJYKATA E APELIT TIRAN\u00cb\u2028V \u00cb R E N\u2028Partia Demokratike e Shqip\u00ebris\u00eb \u00ebsht\u00eb subjekt juridik i s\u00eb drejt\u00ebs, i krijuar mbi baz\u00ebn e rregullave t\u00eb ligjit nr. 8580, dat\u00eb 17.02.2000 \u201cP\u00ebr partit\u00eb politike\u201d. Partia Demokratike e Shqip\u00ebris\u00eb (n\u00eb vijim referuar si PDSH) \u00ebsht\u00eb regjistruar n\u00eb regjistrin e partive politike.<\/p>\n

<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n

N\u00eb dat\u00eb 13.12.2021, n\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebn e Rrethit Gjyq\u00ebsor Tiran\u00eb u depozitua k\u00ebrkesa e PDSH-s\u00eb, p\u00ebr pasqyrimin n\u00eb t\u00eb dh\u00ebnat e regjistruara p\u00ebr k\u00ebt\u00eb subjekt, t\u00eb ndryshimeve n\u00eb Statutin e partis\u00eb, si dhe t\u00eb organeve t\u00eb reja, t\u00eb zgjedhura n\u00eb Kuvendin Komb\u00ebtar t\u00eb dat\u00ebs 17.07.2021. N\u00eb dat\u00eb 28.12.2021, pran\u00eb gjyqtares s\u00eb caktuar p\u00ebr shqyrtimin e \u00e7\u00ebshtjes, u depozitua nj\u00eb k\u00ebrkes\u00eb, me t\u00eb cil\u00ebn i\u2019u k\u00ebrkua gjykat\u00ebs q\u00eb t\u00eb shtohej objekti, duke u pasqyruar n\u00eb regjistrin e partive politike, edhe vendimet e marra n\u00eb Kuvendin Komb\u00ebtar t\u00eb dat\u00ebs 18.12.2021. Me vendimin nr. 1337\/218 Regjistri Themeltar, dat\u00eb 18.03.2022 t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb Rrethit Gjyq\u00ebsor Tiran\u00eb, u vendos pranimi i k\u00ebrkes\u00ebs s\u00eb PDSH-s\u00eb dhe depozitimi i Statutit dhe vendimeve t\u00eb dala\u2028nga Kuvendi Komb\u00ebtar i Partis\u00eb Demokratike t\u00eb Shqip\u00ebris\u00eb i dat\u00ebs 17.07.2021. <\/p>\n

M\u00eb her\u00ebt, me vendim t\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebm gjykata e shkall\u00ebs s\u00eb par\u00eb refuzoi t\u00eb pranonte k\u00ebrkes\u00ebn p\u00ebr shtim t\u00eb objektit, duke i\u2019u referuar edhe faktit se nj\u00eb tjet\u00ebr k\u00ebrkes\u00eb, p\u00ebr nj\u00eb Kuvend t\u00eb dat\u00ebs 11.12.2021 t\u00eb\u2028PDSH-s\u00eb, ishte regjistruare tashm\u00eb n\u00eb gjykat\u00eb dhe se regjistrimet p\u00ebr t\u00eb nj\u00ebjt\u00ebn parti politike duhej t\u00eb ndiqnin rendin kronologjik nga pik\u00ebpamja kohore.\u2028
\nN\u00eb dat\u00eb 12.04.2022, mbi baz\u00ebn e ankimit t\u00eb PDSH-s\u00eb, \u00e7\u00ebshtja \u00ebsht\u00eb paraqitur p\u00ebr gjykim n\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebn e Apelit Tiran\u00eb. Ankuesi kund\u00ebrshton vendimin e nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebm t\u00eb gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb shkall\u00ebs s\u00eb par\u00eb, q\u00eb refuzoi t\u00eb regjistroj\u00eb krahas vendimeve t\u00eb Kuvendit t\u00eb dat\u00ebs 17.07.2021, edhe ato t\u00eb dat\u00ebs 18.12.2021. Mbi k\u00ebt\u00eb baz\u00eb, ankuesi k\u00ebrkoi ose prishjen e vendimit p\u00ebrfundimtar t\u00eb gjykat\u00ebs dhe d\u00ebrgimin e \u00e7\u00ebshtjes p\u00ebr rigjykim; ose ndryshimin e k\u00ebtij vendimi dhe regjistrimin n\u00eb regjistrin e partive politike edhe t\u00eb vendimeve t\u00eb marra n\u00eb Kuvendin Komb\u00ebtar t\u00eb dat\u00ebs\u202818.12.2021. N\u00ebp\u00ebrmjet shortit elektronik \u00ebsht\u00eb p\u00ebrcaktuar si gjyqtare relatore e \u00e7\u00ebshtjes n\u00eb apel, Znj. Irida\u2028Kacerja. <\/p>\n

<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n

Gjykimi i \u00e7\u00ebshtjes n\u00eb apel ka filluar n\u00eb dat\u00eb 17.06.2022, nd\u00ebrsa nuk ka mundur t\u00eb p\u00ebrfundoj\u00eb p\u00ebr shkak t\u00eb munges\u00ebs s\u00eb ankuesit, apo k\u00ebrkesave t\u00eb p\u00ebrfaq\u00ebsuesve t\u00eb tij. N\u00eb dat\u00eb 22.12.2022, kur duhej t\u00eb zhvillohej seanca gjyq\u00ebsore e caktuar s\u00eb fundmi, u depozitua n\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebn e Apelit k\u00ebrkesa e ankuesit p\u00ebr p\u00ebrjashtimin e gjyqtares relatore Irida Kacerja. Duke i\u2019u\u2028
\n3\u2028referuar vendimit t\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebm t\u00eb seanc\u00ebs s\u00eb m\u00ebparshme, me t\u00eb cilin gjykata k\u00ebrkoi nga p\u00ebrfaq\u00ebsuesi i ankuesit, q\u00eb t\u00eb paraqitej me nj\u00eb autorizim t\u00eb l\u00ebshuar n\u00eb p\u00ebrputhje me rregullat e Statutit, ankuesi pretendon se gjyqtarja relatore, nj\u00ebkoh\u00ebsisht edhe kryesuese e seanc\u00ebs gjyq\u00ebsore, q\u00eb komunikoi vendimin e m\u00ebsip\u00ebrm, kishte paragjykuar \u00e7\u00ebshtjen dhe se p\u00ebr k\u00ebt\u00eb shkak duhej t\u00eb p\u00ebrjashtohej nga gjykimi i saj. <\/p>\n

<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n

Sipas p\u00ebrmbajtjes s\u00eb procesverbalit t\u00eb seanc\u00ebs gjyq\u00ebsore t\u00eb dat\u00ebs 20.12.2022, gjykata e apelit nd\u00ebrsa pranoi k\u00ebrkes\u00ebn e p\u00ebrfaq\u00ebsuesit t\u00eb PDSH-s\u00eb p\u00ebr t\u2019i dh\u00ebn\u00eb koh\u00eb t\u00eb njihej me aktet, si nj\u00eb p\u00ebrfaq\u00ebsues i caktuar rishtas, i k\u00ebrkoi atij q\u00eb t\u00eb b\u00ebnte rregullimet e duhura n\u00eb autorizimin e l\u00ebshuar nga Sekretari i P\u00ebrgjithsh\u00ebm i PDSH-s\u00eb, n\u00eb p\u00ebrputhje me nenin 56 t\u00eb Statutit t\u00eb partis\u00eb. <\/p>\n

Pas paraqitjes s\u00eb k\u00ebrkes\u00ebs, n\u00eb seanc\u00eb gjyq\u00ebsore, gjyqtarja Irida Kacerja deklaroi se nuk kishte asnj\u00eb shkak, p\u00ebr t\u00eb cilin duhej t\u00eb jepte dor\u00ebheqjen nga gjykimi dhe se k\u00ebrkesa lidhur me autorizimin bazohej n\u00eb nj\u00eb vendim t\u00eb trup\u00ebs gjyq\u00ebsore dhe jo vet\u00ebm t\u00eb saj, n\u00eb cil\u00ebsin\u00eb e relatores dhe drejtueses s\u00eb seanc\u00ebs. N\u00eb po t\u00eb nj\u00ebjt\u00ebn seanc\u00eb, trupi gjykues vendosi t\u00eb nd\u00ebrpres\u00eb gjykimin, me q\u00ebllim shqyrtimin e\u2028k\u00ebrkes\u00ebs p\u00ebr p\u00ebrjashtim. <\/p>\n

<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n

Po at\u00eb dit\u00eb, bazuar n\u00eb nenin 75 t\u00eb Kodit t\u00eb Procedur\u00ebs Civile u hodh shorti p\u00ebr caktimin e gjyqtarit q\u00eb do t\u00eb shqyrtoj\u00eb k\u00ebrkes\u00ebn, e cila bazuar n\u00eb t\u00eb nj\u00ebjt\u00ebn dispozit\u00eb shqyrtohet n\u00eb dhom\u00eb k\u00ebshillimi. Paraprakisht evidentohet se gjyqtarja, ndaj s\u00eb cil\u00ebs u paraqit k\u00ebrkesa p\u00ebr p\u00ebrjashtim, nuk vler\u00ebsoi t\u00eb parashtroj\u00eb nj\u00eb mendim me shkrim lidhur me t\u00eb, duke q\u00ebndruar vet\u00ebm n\u00eb deklarimin e saj n\u00eb seanc\u00eb, mbi munges\u00ebn e kushteve t\u00eb papajtueshm\u00ebris\u00eb. <\/p>\n

Lidhur me thelbin e \u00e7\u00ebshtjes, gjykata konstaton se shkak p\u00ebr k\u00ebrkes\u00ebn p\u00ebr p\u00ebrjashtimin e gjyqtares \u00ebsht\u00eb vendimi i nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebm i gjykat\u00ebs, lidhur me kushtet e autorizimit p\u00ebr p\u00ebrfaq\u00ebsim n\u00eb gjyq t\u00eb ankuesit. Mbi k\u00ebt\u00eb baz\u00eb, shtrohet p\u00ebr diskutim \u00e7\u00ebshtja n\u00ebse dh\u00ebnia e vendimeve t\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjetme p\u00ebr \u00e7\u00ebshtje t\u00eb caktuara, a p\u00ebrb\u00ebn shkak p\u00ebr p\u00ebrjashtimin e gjyqtarit\/gjyqtar\u00ebve, nga gjykimi i \u00e7\u00ebshtjes?\u2028
\n4\u2028Gjykata evidenton se e drejta p\u00ebr tu gjykuar nga nj\u00eb gjykat\u00eb e pavarur dhe e paanshme, p\u00ebrb\u00ebn nj\u00eb nga komponent\u00ebt m\u00eb t\u00eb r\u00ebnd\u00ebsish\u00ebm t\u00eb procesit t\u00eb rregullt gjyq\u00ebsor. Aktet nd\u00ebrkomb\u00ebtare dhe ligji i brendsh\u00ebm, garantojn\u00eb respektimin e k\u00ebsaj t\u00eb drejte themelore. Po ashtu, n\u00eb aspektin e brendsh\u00ebm evidentohet nj\u00eb jurisprudenc\u00eb e pasur e Gjykat\u00ebs Kushtetuese, e cila ka analizuar nocionin e gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb paanshme, si element i procesit t\u00eb rregullt gjyq\u00ebsor. Gjykata Kushtetuese, n\u00ebn frym\u00ebn edhe t\u00eb jurisprudenc\u00ebs s\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs Evropiane t\u00eb t\u00eb Drejtave t\u00eb Njeriut, ka theksuar se gjykimi nga nj\u00eb gjykat\u00eb e paanshme \u00ebsht\u00eb nj\u00eb nga elementet e r\u00ebnd\u00ebsish\u00ebm t\u00eb procesit t\u00eb rregullt ligjor, i garantuar nga neni 42 i Kushtetut\u00ebs dhe neni 6 i\u2028KEDNJ-s\u00eb. <\/p>\n

<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n

Nj\u00eb gjykat\u00eb duhet t\u00eb jet\u00eb e paanshme jo vet\u00ebm formalisht, por edhe n\u00eb m\u00ebnyr\u00eb t\u00eb shprehur. E drejta p\u00ebr t\u2019u gjykuar p\u00ebrpara nj\u00eb gjykate kompetente, t\u00eb pavarur dhe t\u00eb paanshme, t\u00eb caktuar me ligj, k\u00ebrkon q\u00eb drejt\u00ebsia jo vet\u00ebm duhet t\u00eb b\u00ebhet, por ajo, gjithashtu, duhet t\u00eb shikohet q\u00eb b\u00ebhet (shih vendimet nr. 38, dat\u00eb 15.10.2007; nr. 25, dat\u00eb 11.06.2013; nr. 6, dat\u00eb 16.02.2015 t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs Kushtetuese). <\/p>\n

Gjyqtari \u00ebsht\u00eb personalisht i paansh\u00ebm, derisa nj\u00ebra nga pal\u00ebt, gjat\u00eb rrjedh\u00ebs s\u00eb procesit, t\u00eb mos paraqes\u00eb prova p\u00ebr t\u00eb kund\u00ebrt\u00ebn. Paanshm\u00ebria n\u00ebnkupton q\u00eb gjyqtar\u00ebt nuk duhet t\u00eb fshehin paragjykime rreth \u00e7\u00ebshtjes t\u00eb v\u00ebn\u00eb p\u00ebrpara tyre dhe se ata duhet t\u00eb mos veprojn\u00eb n\u00eb m\u00ebnyra q\u00eb nxisin interesat e nj\u00ebr\u00ebs pal\u00eb. Gjyq\u00ebsori k\u00ebrkohet t\u00eb siguroj\u00eb q\u00eb procedurat t\u00eb drejtohen ndershm\u00ebrisht e drejt\u00ebsisht dhe q\u00eb t\u00eb respektohen t\u00eb drejtat e t\u00eb gjitha pal\u00ebve. <\/p>\n

<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n

Paanshm\u00ebria e v\u00ebrtet\u00eb dhe t\u00eb hequrit si i paansh\u00ebm jan\u00eb q\u00eb t\u00eb dyja themelore p\u00ebr ruajtjen e respektit ndaj drejt\u00ebsis\u00eb. Parimi i paanshm\u00ebris\u00eb ka n\u00eb vetvete elementin e vet subjektiv, i cili lidhet ngusht\u00eb me bindjen e brendshme q\u00eb krijon gjyqtari p\u00ebr zgjidhjen e \u00e7\u00ebshtjes n\u00eb gjykim, si dhe elementin objektiv, me t\u00eb cilin kuptohet dh\u00ebnia e garancive t\u00eb nevojshme p\u00ebr gjykim t\u00eb paansh\u00ebm nga vet\u00eb gjykata, p\u00ebrmes m\u00ebnjanimit prej saj t\u00eb \u00e7do dyshimi t\u00eb p\u00ebrligjur n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb drejtim (shih vendimin nr. 12, dat\u00eb 13.04.2007 t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs Kushtetuese). <\/p>\n

<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n

Nd\u00ebr t\u00eb tjera, gjykata duhet t\u00eb jet\u00eb e kujdesshme dhe t\u00eb marr\u00eb parasysh ve\u00e7an\u00ebrisht problemin e p\u00ebrb\u00ebrjes s\u00eb trupit gjykues, n\u00eb m\u00ebnyr\u00eb q\u00eb t\u00eb m\u00ebnjanohen nga gjykimi i \u00e7\u00ebshtjes gjyqtar\u00ebt q\u00eb nuk kan\u00eb garancit\u00eb e k\u00ebrkuara p\u00ebr paanshm\u00ebri n\u00eb kuptimin objektiv (shih edhe vendimet nr. 38, dat\u00eb 15.10.2007; nr. 7, dat\u00eb 07.03.2011; nr. 36, dat\u00eb 26.07.2011 t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs Kushtetuese).\u2028
\n5\u2028Jurisprudenca e deritanishme e Gjykat\u00ebs Kushtetuese ka evidentuar se ky parim duhet t\u00eb respektohet n\u00eb \u00e7do shkall\u00eb t\u00eb gjykimit. P\u00ebr Gjykat\u00ebn \u00ebsht\u00eb konsideruar \u201cgjykat\u00eb e nj\u00ebanshme\u201d trupi gjykues, n\u00eb p\u00ebrb\u00ebrje t\u00eb t\u00eb cilit ka qen\u00eb i pranish\u00ebm qoft\u00eb edhe vet\u00ebm nj\u00eb gjyqtar, i cili, n\u00eb k\u00ebndv\u00ebshtrimin objektiv, nuk jepte garanci p\u00ebr nj\u00eb gjykim t\u00eb paansh\u00ebm. <\/p>\n

<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n

Gjykata ka theksuar se thjesht dhe vet\u00ebm pjes\u00ebmarrja e nj\u00eb ose m\u00eb shum\u00eb gjyqtar\u00ebve n\u00eb nj\u00eb procedim t\u00eb m\u00ebparsh\u00ebm, pavar\u00ebsisht nga ndikimi i pranis\u00eb dhe i mendimit t\u00eb tyre n\u00eb t\u00eb gjith\u00eb trupin gjykues, \u00ebsht\u00eb nj\u00eb arsye e mjaftueshme dhe nj\u00ebkoh\u00ebsisht nj\u00eb garanci m\u00eb pak p\u00ebr k\u00ebrkuesin, tek i cili \u00ebsht\u00eb krijuar dyshimi i bazuar se gjykata nuk ka qen\u00eb e paanshme n\u00eb shqyrtimin e \u00e7\u00ebshtjes s\u00eb tij (shih vendimet nr. 48, dat\u00eb 30.07.1999; nr. 21, dat\u00eb 29.04.2010; nr. 49, dat\u00eb 10.07.2015 t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs Kushtetuese). N\u00eb kuptim t\u00eb nenit 42\/2 t\u00eb Kushtetut\u00ebs, respektimi i parimit t\u00eb paanshm\u00ebris\u00eb verifikohet duke zbatuar dy teste: testin subjektiv, i cili n\u00eb thelb k\u00ebrkon t\u00eb provuarit e faktit q\u00eb bindja personale ose interesi i nj\u00eb gjyqtari kan\u00eb ndikuar n\u00eb vendimin e gjykat\u00ebs, si edhe testin objektiv, i cili k\u00ebrkon t\u00eb provuarit n\u00ebse gjyqtari ka ofruar garanci t\u00eb mjaftueshme p\u00ebr t\u00eb p\u00ebrjashtuar \u00e7do dyshim t\u00eb arsyesh\u00ebm n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb drejtim (shih vendimin nr. 18, dat\u00eb 03.05.2007 t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs Kushtetuese). <\/p>\n

<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n

N\u00eb kuptim t\u00eb testit subjektiv, paanshm\u00ebria e gjyqtar\u00ebve duhet t\u00eb prezumohet derisa t\u00eb provohet e kund\u00ebrta (shih vendimet e Gjykat\u00ebs Kushtetuese nr. 7, dat\u00eb 11.03.2008; nr.11, dat\u00eb 02.04.2008; nr. 23, dat\u00eb 04.11.2008) . P\u00ebr sa i p\u00ebrket testit objektiv, ai n\u00ebnkupton se ve\u00e7 sjelljes personale t\u00eb\u2028\u00e7do an\u00ebtari t\u00eb trupit gjykues, duhet t\u00eb provohet n\u00ebse ka fakte bind\u00ebse, t\u00eb cilat v\u00ebn\u00eb n\u00eb dyshimpaanshm\u00ebrin\u00eb. N\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb kuad\u00ebr edhe dukja e jashtme mund t\u00eb ket\u00eb nj\u00eb far\u00eb r\u00ebnd\u00ebsie. <\/p>\n

P\u00ebr rrjedhoj\u00eb, kur vler\u00ebsohet n\u00ebse n\u00eb nj\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtje konkrete ka nj\u00eb arsye t\u00eb p\u00ebrligjur q\u00eb rrezikon paanshm\u00ebrin\u00eb e nj\u00eb trupi gjykues, k\u00ebndv\u00ebshtrimi i atyre q\u00eb paraqesin k\u00ebt\u00eb pretendim ka r\u00ebnd\u00ebsi, por vendimtar mbetet p\u00ebrcaktimi n\u00ebse ky dyshim \u00ebsht\u00eb objektivisht i justifikuesh\u00ebm (shih vendimet nr. 10, dat\u00eb 02.04.2009; nr. 25, dat\u00eb 10.06.2011; nr. 47, dat\u00eb 07.11.2011; nr. 49, dat\u00eb 10.07.2015 t\u00eb Gjykat\u00ebs\u2028Kushtetuese). <\/p>\n

Me q\u00ebllim garantimin e paan\u00ebsis\u00eb s\u00eb gjykat\u00ebs, Kodi i Procedur\u00ebs Civile, n\u00eb nenin 72 t\u00eb tij, ka p\u00ebrcaktuar rastet kur gjyqtari nuk mund t\u00eb marr\u00eb pjes\u00eb n\u00eb gjykimin civil, p\u00ebr \u00e7ka duhet t\u00eb heq\u00eb dor\u00eb nga gjykimi, apo t\u00eb p\u00ebrjashtohet kur nj\u00eb gj\u00eb e till\u00eb k\u00ebrkohet nga pjes\u00ebmarr\u00ebsit n\u00eb proces.\u2028Nga t\u00ebr\u00ebsia e shkaqeve t\u00eb papajtueshm\u00ebris\u00eb, rezulton se ato lidhen me konfliktin e interesit q\u00eb rezulton p\u00ebr \u00e7do rast konkret, me raportet q\u00eb ekzistojn\u00eb mes gjyqtarit dhe \u00e7\u00ebshtjes, apo gjyqtarit dhe pal\u00ebve pjes\u00ebmarr\u00ebse n\u00eb proces. Rrethanat q\u00eb e b\u00ebjn\u00eb t\u00eb papajtuesh\u00ebm rolin e gjyqtarit n\u00eb nj\u00eb\u2028
\n6\u2028gjykim t\u00eb caktuar, duhet t\u00eb jen\u00eb t\u00eb tilla q\u00eb t\u00eb pengojn\u00eb ushtrimin e veprimtaris\u00eb gjyq\u00ebsore t\u00eb paanshme. N\u00eb k\u00ebrkes\u00ebn objekt shqyrtimi k\u00ebrkuesi v\u00eb n\u00eb dyshim paan\u00ebsin\u00eb e gjyqtares relatore dhe drejtuese t\u00eb seanc\u00ebs, bazuar n\u00eb fakte, q\u00eb lidhen me ushtrimin prej saj t\u00eb detyr\u00ebs n\u00eb shqyrtimin e \u00e7\u00ebshtjes.
\n\u2028Konkretisht, shkaku i p\u00ebrjashtimit lidhet me nj\u00eb vendim t\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebm, funksion ky gjyq\u00ebsor n\u00eb kompetenc\u00eb t\u00eb trup\u00ebs, kontrolli i t\u00eb cilit kryhet n\u00ebp\u00ebrmjet rregullave t\u00eb ankimit gjyq\u00ebsor. Qartazi konstatohet se mbi gjyqtaren nuk ka asnj\u00eb pretendim p\u00ebr konflikt interesi, duke referuar si shkak\u2028p\u00ebrjashtimi marrjen e nj\u00eb vendimi t\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebm nga ana e gjykat\u00ebs s\u00eb apelit, q\u00eb sipas k\u00ebrkuesit afekton edhe zgjidhjen n\u00eb themel t\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtjes. <\/p>\n

\u00cbsht\u00eb pik\u00ebrisht ushtrimi i funksionit gjyq\u00ebsor, n\u00eb p\u00ebrmbushje t\u00eb p\u00ebrgjegj\u00ebsive ligjore, baza mbi t\u00eb cil\u00ebn k\u00ebrkohet p\u00ebrjashtimi i gjyqtares, p\u00ebr arsye\u2028se vendimi i nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebm nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb mir\u00ebpritur nga k\u00ebrkuesi. Nisur nga k\u00ebto rrethana, gjykata vler\u00ebson se mungojn\u00eb arsye serioze p\u00ebr t\u00eb besuar se paan\u00ebsia e gjyqtares Irida Kacerja n\u00eb lidhje me gjykimin e \u00e7\u00ebshtjes \u00ebsht\u00eb e rrezikuar, p\u00ebr sa koh\u00eb q\u00eb nuk rezulton q\u00eb t\u00eb evidentohen interesa\u2028apo gjykime personale, q\u00eb lidhen me thelbin e pretendimeve t\u00eb ngritura n\u00eb ankim. <\/p>\n

Gjykata vler\u00ebson se k\u00ebrkesa p\u00ebr p\u00ebrjashtimin e gjyqtarit p\u00ebr shkak t\u00eb vendimeve t\u00eb nd\u00ebrmjetme, jo vet\u00ebm q\u00eb nuk gjen mb\u00ebshtetje ligjore, por p\u00ebrkundrazi vjen ndesh me parimin e pavar\u00ebsis\u00eb dhe paan\u00ebsis\u00eb s\u00eb gjykat\u00ebs. \u00cbsht\u00eb detyr\u00eb e gjykat\u00ebs q\u00eb t\u00eb verifikoj\u00eb prezenc\u00ebn e pal\u00ebve n\u00eb proces apo t\u00eb p\u00ebrfaq\u00ebsuesve t\u00eb tyre, p\u00ebrfshir\u00eb tagrat e p\u00ebrfaq\u00ebsimit. <\/p>\n

N\u00eb rastin konkret, me vendimin q\u00eb shtyu seanc\u00ebn gjyq\u00ebsore, gjykata k\u00ebrkoi q\u00eb p\u00ebrfaq\u00ebsuesi t\u00eb ket\u00eb tagrat e nevojshme t\u00eb p\u00ebrfaq\u00ebsimit. N\u00ebse ky vendim i nd\u00ebrmjet\u00ebm ishte i paqart\u00eb, apo nuk u kuptua nga p\u00ebrfaq\u00ebsuesi i ankuesit, ai mund t\u00eb k\u00ebrkonte sqarime nga gjykata lidhur me aspekte t\u00eb ve\u00e7anta q\u00eb k\u00ebrkoheshin t\u00eb plot\u00ebsoheshin, sikund\u00ebr mund t\u00eb argumentonte bindsh\u00ebm se ai i kishte tagrat e p\u00ebrfaq\u00ebsimit, n\u00ebse vler\u00ebsonte ndryshe. <\/p>\n

<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n

Nj\u00eb gj\u00eb e till\u00eb nuk ka ndodhur dhe veprimi procedural i PDSH-s\u00eb ishte k\u00ebrkesa p\u00ebr p\u00ebrjashtim t\u00eb gjyqtares. N\u00eb munges\u00eb t\u00eb nj\u00eb arsye serioze, q\u00eb do t\u00eb vinte objektivisht n\u00eb dyshim paan\u00ebsin\u00eb e gjyqtares relatore, k\u00ebrkesa p\u00ebr p\u00ebrjashtimin e saj vler\u00ebsohet e pabaz\u00eb. N\u00eb lidhje me k\u00ebt\u00eb, vlen t\u00eb p\u00ebrmendet se n\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtjen Gjon Bo\u00e7ari k. Shqip\u00ebris\u00eb (Ankimi NR. 10508\/02) Gjykata Europiane e t\u00eb Drejtave t\u00eb Njeriut \u00ebsht\u00eb shprehur se: \u201cLidhur me paan\u00ebsin\u00eb objektive, gjykata tashm\u00eb ka konkluduar se fakti i thjesht\u00eb q\u00eb gjyqtari ka marr\u00eb vendim, n\u00eb vetvete nuk mjafton p\u00ebr t\u00eb mb\u00ebshtetur dyshimet rreth paan\u00ebsis\u00eb s\u00eb tij. Ajo q\u00eb ka r\u00ebnd\u00ebsi \u00ebsht\u00eb q\u00ebllimi dhe natyra e veprimeve q\u00eb kryen ai gjat\u00eb\u2028
\n7\u2028procesit gjyq\u00ebsor. N\u00eb t\u00eb nj\u00ebjt\u00ebn m\u00ebnyr\u00eb, njohurit\u00eb e detajuara t\u00eb gjyqtarit mbi \u00e7\u00ebshtjen, nuk p\u00ebrb\u00ebjn\u00eb ndonj\u00eb shkak p\u00ebr t\u00eb dyshuar mbi paanshm\u00ebrin\u00eb e tij gjat\u00eb marrjes s\u00eb vendimit n\u00eb themel.\u201d Po ashtu, sa i p\u00ebrket parimit t\u00eb paan\u00ebsis\u00eb s\u00eb gjyqtarit n\u00eb lidhje natyr\u00ebn e pretendimit t\u00eb k\u00ebrkuesit p\u00ebr vendimmarrjet e m\u00ebparshme t\u00eb gjyqtar\u00ebve, gjykata mban parasysh edhe jurisprudenc\u00ebn e gjykatave me reputacion t\u00eb lart\u00eb nd\u00ebrkomb\u00ebtar p\u00ebr standarde ligjore, si\u00e7 \u00ebsht\u00eb edhe Gjykata Supreme e Shteteve t\u00eb Bashkuara t\u00eb Amerik\u00ebs, e cila n\u00eb vendimin e dh\u00ebn\u00eb prej saj n\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtjen Liteky et al k. Shteteve t\u00eb Bashkuara t\u00eb Amerik\u00ebs [510 U. S. 540 (1994)], ka shfaqur nj\u00eb kuptim me k\u00ebmb\u00eb n\u00eb tok\u00eb, t\u00eb parimit t\u00eb paan\u00ebsis\u00eb s\u00eb gjyqtarit. <\/p>\n

<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n

Konkretisht n\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtje, Gjykata Supreme shprehet se: \u201cAshtu si\u00e7 gjyqtari Jerome Frank ka theksuar me forc\u00eb: \u201cPaanshm\u00ebria nuk \u00ebsht\u00eb naivitet. Mos-interesimi nuk duhet barazuar me pafaj\u00ebsin\u00eb e nj\u00eb f\u00ebmije. N\u00ebse gjyqtari nuk formon gjykime p\u00ebr aktor\u00ebt e t\u00eb ashtuquajturave drama gjyq\u00ebsore q\u00eb zhvillohen n\u00eb gjykat\u00eb, ai nuk do t\u00eb mundet kurr\u00eb t\u00eb marr\u00eb nj\u00eb vendim.\u201d N\u00eb k\u00ebt\u00eb vendim, arsyetohet edhe se: \u201cS\u00eb pari, vendimet e gjykat\u00ebs n\u00eb vetvete, pothuajse asnj\u00ebher\u00eb nuk p\u00ebrb\u00ebjn\u00eb baz\u00eb t\u00eb vlefshme p\u00ebr pretendimet e paragjykimit apo anshm\u00ebris\u00eb s\u00eb gjyqtarit [\u2026] S\u00eb dyti, mendimet q\u00eb formon\u2028gjyqtari n\u00eb baz\u00eb t\u00eb fakteve apo ngjarjeve q\u00eb verifikohen apo ndodhin gjat\u00eb procesit, apo para tij, nuk p\u00ebrb\u00ebjn\u00eb baz\u00eb p\u00ebr pretendime p\u00ebr paragjykim apo anshm\u00ebri, p\u00ebrve\u00e7 n\u00ebse ato nxjerrin n\u00eb pah nj\u00eb favorizim apo antagoniz\u00ebm t\u00eb rr\u00ebnjosur thell\u00eb, q\u00eb mund t\u00eb b\u00ebj\u00eb t\u00eb pamundur gjykimin e\u2028ndersh\u00ebm t\u00eb \u00e7\u00ebshtjes.\u201d <\/p>\n

Si p\u00ebrfundim, gjykata vler\u00ebson se k\u00ebrkesa p\u00ebr p\u00ebrjashtimin e gjyqtares Irida Kacerja nuk ka asnj\u00eb baz\u00eb, q\u00eb t\u00eb pranohet dhe se ndryshe nga pretendimi, nuk verifikohet asnj\u00eb arsye q\u00eb objektivisht e b\u00ebn at\u00eb t\u00eb duket jo e paanshme n\u00eb raport me subjektin ankues. Referuar k\u00ebtij p\u00ebrfundimi, sjelljes s\u00eb k\u00ebrkuesit n\u00eb proces dhe bazuar n\u00eb nenin 76, paragrafi i dyt\u00eb t\u00eb Kodit t\u00eb Procedur\u00ebs Civile, duhet aplikuar sanksioni ligjor i gjob\u00ebs n\u00eb shum\u00ebn 10,000 lek\u00eb. <\/p>\n

<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n
<\/figure>\n

P\u00cbR K\u00cbTO ARSYE\u2028Gjykata e Apelit Tiran\u00eb, bazuar n\u00eb nenet 72, 74, 75 dhe 76 t\u00eb Kodit t\u00eb Procedur\u00ebs Penale\u20288\u2028VENOSI :\u2028\u2013 Mospranimin e k\u00ebrkes\u00ebs s\u00eb ankuesit Partia Demokratike e Shqip\u00ebris\u00eb p\u00ebr p\u00ebrjashtimin e\u2028gjyqtares Irida Kacerja.\u2028\u2013 Shpenzimet gjyq\u00ebsore i ngarkohen k\u00ebrkuesit.\u2028\u2013 Gjobitjen e k\u00ebrkuesit Partia Demokratike e Shqip\u00ebris\u00eb n\u00eb shum\u00ebn 10,000 (dhjet\u00ebmij\u00eb) lek\u00eb.\u2028\u2013 Ky vendim \u00ebsht\u00eb i form\u00ebs s\u00eb prer\u00eb.\u2028\u2013 Nj\u00eb kopje e vendimit t\u2019u komunikohet gjyqtares Irida Kacerja dhe k\u00ebrkuesit Partia\u2028Demokratike e Shqip\u00ebris\u00eb.\u2028Tiran\u00eb, 12.01.2023.\u2028GJYQTARE\u2028Edlira PETRI<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Gjykata e Apelit ka rr\u00ebzuar dit\u00ebn e djeshme k\u00ebrkes\u00ebn e Grupit t\u00eb Partis\u00eb Demokratike t\u00eb p\u00ebrfaq\u00ebsuar nga Enkelejd Alibeaj, p\u00ebr shkarkimin e gjyqtares Irida Kacerja si relatore e \u00e7\u00ebshtjes gjyq\u00ebsore p\u00ebr njohjen e statutit t\u00eb PD-s\u00eb. Apeli ka njoftuar gjithashtu se PD-ja \u00ebsht\u00eb gjobitur me vler\u00ebn 1 mln lek\u00eb n\u00eb lidhje me k\u00ebt\u00eb situat\u00eb. GJYKATA […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2039,"featured_media":309903,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":{"0":"post-309902","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-uncategorized-sq"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/zjarr.tv\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/309902","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/zjarr.tv\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/zjarr.tv\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zjarr.tv\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2039"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zjarr.tv\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=309902"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/zjarr.tv\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/309902\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zjarr.tv\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/309903"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/zjarr.tv\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=309902"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zjarr.tv\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=309902"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/zjarr.tv\/sq\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=309902"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}