Fatmir Mediu, 54, has led the Republican Party since 1997. Mediu’s current position is not in difficulty because of politics, but because of his tenure as defense minister from 2005 to 2008, the year he resigned after the tragedy. of Gerdec that took the lives of 26 people, many others were injured and dozens of homes and buildings were destroyed.
Despite the pardon and the request accompanied by ‘moral responsibility’, according to him, when he asked for reconciliation in the High Court in front of the relatives of the minor Durda, who was seriously injured on March 15, 2008, Mediu took advantage of the MP’s cloak.
The mandate he won from the 2009 elections and the procedures to postpone the session to the Supreme Court even with the justification that Fatmir Mediu had stuck in the Kalimashi tunnel, gave the Supreme Court an excuse to argue the closure of the case.
With three pro judges, namely Besnik Imeraj, Ardian Nuni and Majlinda Andrea and only two women against Evelina Qirjako and Evgjeni Sinoimeri, Fatmir Mediu emerged unscathed from the supreme justice that took him directly to the Supreme Court, which at the time adjudicated in initial jurisdiction in the capacity of minister.
It was this senior position that Mediu held as defense minister that was used as an argument for the Supreme Court of Justice Reform, in other words the New Court, to declare incompetence and send Mediu to the Special Court against Organized Crime and Corruption.
Accused at that time of abuse of office, which for senior officials is the competence of the SPAK, the fate of Fatmir Mediu will be decided by the Special Court, whether or not to give the green light to the SPAK
How did Mediu escape?
As the case against the senior official was submitted for trial on March 13, 2009, nine months after the opening of the trial and the delays, it was realized that Mediu was getting ready for the elections and for a new justification.
As a start before awarding the big bonus, the court acted as it always does in large files, shredding them.
On May 22, the Criminal College separated the trial against 29 other defendants and the Albademil company, including military and dismantling factory administrators.
Agim Lala, Ndue Marku, Ardian Mullai, Zija Bahja, Luan Hoxha, Zenun Fero, Hysni Cocka, Lavdi Shatro, Jorgo Mino, Fiqiret Mato, Armand Tartari, Fatbardh Kuci, Shpetim Spahiu, Adriatik Mema, Rezart Tershana, Denis Hajdari, G , Besnik Dauti, Agim Babameto, Fahri Toska, Mihal Delijorgji, Ylli Pinari, Shkëlzen Madani, Ardian Mullai, Sokol Ngjeci, Dritan Minxholli, Juljana Margariti, Dashnor Caushi, Hilmi Lacaj and the Company “Albademil” sh.pk were sent to The Court of Tirana.
For the former minister, the game has just started. And it turned out exactly like that. After procrastination for procedural reasons, in September, still not brought to justice and as soon as the supreme judges sat in the rostrum on September 9, 2009, the two lawyers of the former minister, Petrit Serjani and Ardian Visha submitted a memorandum drawing the court’s attention that their client had won as an MP in the general elections held in June 2009.
“This fact and circumstance does not allow the continuation of the proceedings against our client”, declared the lawyers at that time
But prosecutors representing the central prosecution objected, after what they said the previous Assembly had given an authorization to investigate the former minister.
Even in the next session, the lawyers continued the defense with the new mandate, reminding the court that Fatmir Mediu was getting ready to sit as a deputy of the XVIII branch of the Assembly.
For this reason, the certificate was attached where he had received the mandate on September 11, 2009, exactly a few hours after the court had opened the hearing and after Fatmir Mediu requested an adjournment through lawyers after he was blocked in the Kalimashi tunnel.
The decision of the High Court mentions:
“According to the claims of the defendant’s defense counsel, after the election of the defendant Fatmir Mediu as a deputy, the prosecution body has not submitted a request for authorization to the Albanian Parliament. Also, the Assembly has not issued an authorization to allow criminal prosecution against the defendant Fatmir Mediu, as he has received the mandate of deputy “
And exactly this claim was assessed based on the argument:
“The Criminal College of the High Court considers that the election of the defendant Fatmir Mediu Member of the Albanian Parliament on 01.08.2009 and the lack of an authorization for the proceedings of the Albanian Parliament for this person after his mandate as a Member of Parliament, is one of the legal circumstances of provided by article 290/1-e of the Criminal Code, according to which the criminal prosecution initiated against the defendant Fatmir Mediu can not continue ”.
The documents taken into account at the time was the lack of a new authorization, as the old June 2008 authorization had lost its force as it belonged to the previous legislative Assembly.
The High Court said: “His status is also related to the mandate of the deputy. An important element of this status, among others, is parliamentary immunity, which includes the criminal irresponsibility and criminal inviolability of the deputy. The first has to do with parliamentary irresponsibility, ie with regard to his activity as a member of the Assembly, in the exercise of his function, while criminal inviolability has to do with parliamentary inviolability.
For the case under consideration we are dealing with the institute of immunity in relation to parliamentary inviolability (or criminal inviolability), which is an aspect of the institute of parliamentary immunity. “Immunity is an institution established to ensure the free exercise of the parliamentary mandate and aims to prevent the MP from being prosecuted or arrested without the authorization of the Albanian Parliament.”
Recalling that the authorization belonged to the 17th legislature, while Mediu was a member of the 18th legislature, for the Supreme Court of that time, it had its value until July 1, 2009, immediately after he won the election.
“The prosecution body can not rely on the request to continue the trial against the defendant on the basis of an authorization issued by the previous Assembly, because this authorization, by its very nature, is limited in time. This power of attorney falls and is stripped of its effects not only because it is unnecessary when the court renders a final decision, but also when the defendant regains a regular parliamentary term during the trial.
Because immunity is a guarantee of the Assembly as an institution and not of its deputy, the continuation of the trial against the defendant would violate the integrity of the Assembly itself, which is the one who can decide to waive this immunity on a special request. , only of the prosecution body. “
As a defense was used by the high court the position held in 2002 for the deputy Azgan Haklaj
“… Although the defendant Azgan gained the status of a member of the Assembly after the initiation of criminal proceedings, when the case is in court, his trial can not continue, as the court is before the cases provided in Article 290 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Criminal… ”emphasizes the college
What did the minority say?
Indeed the two women judges did not think alike as colleagues who were considered procedurally incapable of seeking a new authorization
“In the conditions when the Albanian Parliament has once given the authorization allowing the proceeding body to conduct the respective proceeding, it is presumed that it has exercised such control and has considered his request fair.”
For the minority, the constitutional request submitted to the Assembly for authorization to prosecute a category of persons, including deputies, and the actual granting of this authorization does not presuppose the deprivation of the concrete person from the special protection he enjoys due to parliamentary immunity, which he won with the election by the electorate and the confirmation by the CEC.
“On the contrary, after granting the authorization for proceedings, even after receiving him as a defendant, the deputy, as happened with the defendant Fatmir Mediu, continues to exercise his functions as a deputy enjoying legal rights and guarantees, including special juridical-criminal protection for actions directed against him and which constitute a criminal offense, without restriction, the same as the other deputies. The authorization for proceedings given by the Assembly is a precondition for the procedural body, without which the latter cannot perform a number of procedural actions, including taking as a defendant.
The reply to the example of Azgan Haklaj brought in reference to a previous decision according to the two judges reads as follows: “Citizen Azgan Haklaj was elected MP for the first time after criminal proceedings were initiated against him, even after the security measure of imprisonment was imposed and was taken as a defendant. Certainly for the minority, with his election as MP, a completely new circumstance was created for this person, the overcoming of which, without obtaining authorization from the Assembly, would be contrary to the categorical prohibition of point 2 of Article 73 of the Constitution ”. (SI)