By Denis Dyrnjaja
The decision of the Constitutional Court to include the opinion of the Venice Commission on the lawsuit of the Association of Municipalities led by the incumbent Mayor of Shkodra Voltana Ademi, for the invalidity of the local elections of June 30, 2019 has created a debate beyond the legal one. In fact the debate is simple and principled.
We are a parliamentary republic where the Parliament is the body with the greatest controlling power and the Constitutional Court is the supreme body for the interpretation of the constitution and other laws in the Republic of Albania. As a result of this major attribute, the court is considered to have all the legal attributes, has in its composition the necessary assets and members with great professional capacity and integrity to give vital decisions for the state and the country.
In addition, the court has legal advisers and consultants who can provide their expertise and opinion on any lawsuit or issue, no matter how important, general or specific. But in the meantime, the Constitutional Court, beyond its interpretive and decision-making role in relation to issues related to the Constitution, has another function, that of creating a judicial precedent on which it follows in similar cases in the future.
That said, it will be precisely the decisions of this court, based on the attitudes and positions and reasoning of its members that will establish the basis of the constitutional judicial practice of the country, or the practice of acts of constitutional jurisprudence. The issues now in the hands of the Constitutional Court are as delicate as they are unprecedented. So this is the case for its members to show that they are up to the task they have undertaken to perform.
It is about the request for invalidity of an electoral process such as that of June 30, 2019 “On the election of local government in the Republic of Albania” and the dismissal of the President of the Republic, at the request of the Albanian Parliament that voted in favor of dismissal of the head of state also listing violations of the constitution in the exercise of duty. But while all political opinion expects this court to show its authority and professional dignity in relation to these issues, it chooses to avoid passing the ball of legal and constitutional analysis to an international advisory body, such as the Venice Commission.
This commission meets only 4 times a year which means that its consideration of the election issue will take several months at best, always if this issue will be on the priority agenda of the Commission. But does it make sense to wait for months to get the opinion of Venice when we already have the Constitutional Court that has a legal obligation to resolve these issues ?! Addressing Venice is being justified by getting a more qualified opinion. But in fact it can also be taken as an avoidance of the burden of responsibility of decisions with political and state consequences. And this is a start that leaves a mixed taste between institutional and professional weakness.
Therefore, it would be in the dignity of this court to carry out the entire analytical and decision-making process as it thinks and appreciates what happened with the June 30 local elections and the constitutional role of the president. We need its decision with its legal reasoning, not the legal reasoning of Venice with the seal of our Constitutional Court. Therefore, the uncertainty or avoidance to take on decisions, whether they are delicate or complicated, calls into question the authority of this court. Whatever the decision, we are interested in the Constitutional Court analyzing, evaluating and deciding for itself, without “hiding” behind Venice.
Otherwise we have to change the name from the Constitutional Court to the Notary Court that seals the reasoning of Venice. So beyond the political and media rhetoric, the Constitutional Court must show that it exists and functions not as an honorary body, but as a fundamental body of justice and guarantor of the constitution and democracy with its attitudes and decisions.
Any argument that foreign expertise is necessary and that cases are delicate, or that foreign expertise is universally accepted, simply shows the institutional impotence of this court from the beginning of its new era, not to mention the limited professional limits. of some of its members emerging much sooner than expected. The more the state wants, the more the rule of law. The members of the Constitutional Court are in front of the test of the legs, leaving behind the fact who lobbied or voted for them.
